Argument moves in a rule-guided domain

Subscribe (Full Service)


	Search: The ACM Digital Library The Guide

	Feedback

Argument moves in a rule-guided domain

Full text

Pdf (992 KB)

Source

International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law archive
Proceedings of the 3rd international conference on Artificial intelligence and law table of contents

Oxford, England

Pages: 1 - 11

Year of Publication: 1991

ISBN:0-89791-399-X

Authors

David B. Skalak	Department of Computer and Information Science, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA
Edwin L. Rissland	Department of Computer and Information Science, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA

Sponsor

SIGART: ACM Special Interest Group on Artificial Intelligence

Publisher

ACM New York, NY, USA

Bibliometrics

Downloads (6 Weeks): 0, Downloads (12 Months): 8, Citation Count: 6

Additional Information:

references cited by index terms collaborative colleagues peer to peer

Tools and Actions:	Request Permissions Review this Article Save this Article to a Binder Display Formats: BibTeX EndNote ACM Ref

DOI Bookmark:	Use this link to bookmark this Article: http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/112646.112647 What is a DOI?

REFERENCES

Note: OCR errors may be found in this Reference List extracted from the full text article. ACM has opted to expose the complete List rather than only correct and linked references.

	1	Sergio Jose Alvarado, Understanding Editorial Text: A Computer Model of Argument Comprehension, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Norwell, MA, 1990
	2	Alvarado, S. J. (1991). Interrelationships Between Reasoning and Planning in One-Sided Arguments. Working Notes, AAAI Spring Symposium Series: Argument and Belief, Stanford University, Palo Alto, CA.
	3	Ashley, IC D. (1987). Distinguishing- A Reasoner's Wedge. Proceedings of the Ninth Annual Cognitive Science Society Conference, Seattle, WA.
	4	K. D. Ashley, Toward a computational theory of arguing with precedents, Proceedings of the 2nd international conference on Artificial intelligence and law, p.93-102, May 1989, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada [doi>10.1145/74014.74028]
	5	Kevin D. Ashley, Modeling Legal Arguments: Reasoning with Cases and Hypotheticals, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1991
	6	Ashley, K. D. (1991). Toward an Intelligent Case-Based Tutorial Program for Teaching Students to Argue with Cases. Working Notes, AAAI Spring Symposium Series: Argument and Belief, Stanford University, Palo Alto, CA~
	7	August, S. E. & McNamee, L. P. (1991). ARIEL: A Model of Analogy Understanding in Arguments. Working Notes, AAAi Spring Symposium Series: Argument and Belief, Stanford University, Palo Alto, CA.
	8	M. Keith Bellairs , Paul E. Johnson, Contextual relevance in analogical reasoning: a model of legal argument, 1989
	9	Birnbaum, L. (1982). Argument Molecules: A Functional Representation of Argument Structure. Proceedings AAAI-82, American Association for Artificial Intelligence, Pittsburgh, PA.
	10	Birnbaum, L., Flowers, M. & McGuire, R. (1980). Towards an AI Model of Argumentation. Proceedings AAAI-80, American Association for Artificial intelligence, Palo Alto, CA~
	11	Luther Karl Branting, Integrating rules and precedents for classification and explanation: automating legal analysis, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX, 1991
	12	Clark, P. (1988). Representing Arguments as Background Knowledge for the Justification of Case-Based Inferences. Proceedings, Case-Based Reasoning Workshop, AAAI-88. Minneapolis-St. Paul, MN.
	13	Collins, A. (1977). Processes in Acquiring Knowledge. In Schooling and the Acquisition of Knowledge, R.C. Anderson, R.J. Spiro, W.E. Montague, editors. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Hillsdale, NJ.
	14	Anne von der Lieth Gardner, An artificial intelligence approach to legal reasoning, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1987
	15	S. R. Goldman , M. C. Dyer , M. Flowers, Precedent-based legal reasoning and knowledge acquisition in contract law: A process model, Proceedings of the 1st international conference on Artificial intelligence and law, p.210-221, May 27-29, 1997, Boston, Massachusetts, United States [doi>10.1145/41735.41759]
	16	Hart, H. L. A. (1958). The Concept of Law. Clarendon Press, Oxford.
	17	Levi, E. H. (1949). An Introduction to Legal Reasoning. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
	18	Llewellyn, IC N. (1989). The Case Law System in America. Edited by P. Gewirtz. Translated by M. Ansaldi. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
	19	C. C. Marshall, Representing the structure of a legal argument, Proceedings of the 2nd international conference on Artificial intelligence and law, p.121-127, May 1989, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada [doi>10.1145/74014.74031]
	20	McCarty, L. T. & Sridharan, N. S. (1982). A Computational Theory of Legal Argument (LRP- TR-13). Laboratory for Computer' Science Research, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ.
	21	Perelman, C. & Olbrechts-Tyteca, L. (1969). The New Rhetoric: A Treatise on Argumentation. Notre Dame, Indiana: University of Notre Dame Press.
	22	Edwina R Michener, The Structure of Mathematical Knowledge, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, 1978
	23	Rissland, E. L. (1985). Argument Moves and Hypotheticals. In C. Walter (Ed.), Computing Power and Legal Reasoning, West Publishing Co., St. Paul, MN.
	24	Rissland, E. L. (1990). Artificial Intelligence and Law: Stepping Stones to a Model of Legal Reasoning. Yale Law Journal, 99(8), 1957-1982.
	25	Rissland, E. L. & Ashley, K. D. (1986). Hypotheticals as Heuristic Device. Proceedings AAAI. 86, American Association for Artificial Intelligence. Philadelphia.
	26	Rissland, E. L. & Skalak, D. B. (1989). Combining Case-Based and Rule-Based Reasoning: A Heuristic Approach. Proceedings of the Eleventh International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence. International Joint Conferences on Artificial Intelligence, Detroit, MI.
	27	Edwina L. Rissland , David B. Skalak, CABARET: rule interpretation in a hybrid architecture, International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, v.34 n.6, p.839-887, June 1991 [doi>10.1016/0020-7373(91)90013-W]
	28	Rissland, E. L., Valcarce, E. M. & Ashley, K. D. (1984). Explaining and Arguing with Examples. Proceedings AAAI-84, American Association for Artificial Intelligence. Austin, TX.
	29	Skalak, D. B. & Rissland, E. L. (1991). Arguments and Cases: An Inevitable Intertwining. Submitted to the Journal of Artificial Intelligence and Law.
	30	Storrs, G. (1991). Extensions to Toulmin Form for Capturing Real Arguments. Working Notes, AAAI Spring Symposium Series: Argument and Belief, Stanford University, Palo Alto, CA.
	31	Stucky, B. (1986). COINS Technical Report No. 13, Department of Computer and Information Science, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA.
	32	Daniel D. Suthers, Perspectives in Explanation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA, 1989
	33	Sycara, K. P. (1991). Pursuing Persuasive Argumentation. Working Notes, AAAI Spring Symposium Series: Argument and Belief, Stanford University, Palo Alto, CA.
	34	Toulrnin, S. (1958). The Uses of Argument. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.~
	35	Wu, H. J. P. & Lytinen, S. L. (1991). Attitude and Coherence Reasoning in Persuasive Discourse. AAAI Spring Symposium 1991, Argumentation and Belief, Stanford University, Palo Alto, CA.

CITED BY 6

	Henry Prakken, A logical framework for modelling legal argument, Proceedings of the 4th international conference on Artificial intelligence and law, p.1-9, June 15-18, 1993, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
	Arthur M. Farley , Kathleen Freeman, Burden of proof in legal argumentation, Proceedings of the 5th international conference on Artificial intelligence and law, p.156-164, May 21-24, 1995, College Park, Maryland, United States
	Ronald P. Loui , Jeff Norman , Joe Altepeter , Dan Pinkard , Dan Craven , Jessica Linsday , Mark Foltz, Progress on Room 5: a testbed for public interactive semi-formal legal argumentation, Proceedings of the 6th international conference on Artificial intelligence and law, p.207-214, June 30-July 03, 1997, Melbourne, Australia
	Cees Groendijk , Anja Oskamp, Case recognition and strategy classification, Proceedings of the 4th international conference on Artificial intelligence and law, p.125-132, June 15-18, 1993, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
	Ruth Murbach , Éva Nonn, Similarity in harder cases: sentencing for fraud, Proceedings of the 4th international conference on Artificial intelligence and law, p.236-244, June 15-18, 1993, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
	Erich Schweighofer , Dieter Merkl, A learning technique for legal document analysis, Proceedings of the 7th international conference on Artificial intelligence and law, p.156-163, June 14-17, 1999, Oslo, Norway