Constructing arguments with a computational model of an argumentation scheme for legal rules

Subscribe (Full Service)


	Search: The ACM Digital Library The Guide

	Feedback

Constructing arguments with a computational model of an argumentation scheme for legal rules: interpreting legal rules as reasoning policies

Full text

Pdf (300 KB)

Source

International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law archive
Proceedings of the 11th international conference on Artificial intelligence and law table of contents

Stanford, California

SESSION: Modelling legal argument table of contents

Pages: 117 - 121

Year of Publication: 2007

ISBN:978-1-59593-680-6

Author

Thomas F. Gordon

Fraunhofer FOKUS, Berlin, Germany

Sponsor

: International Association for Artificial Intelligence and Law

Publisher

ACM New York, NY, USA

Bibliometrics

Downloads (6 Weeks): 5, Downloads (12 Months): 38, Citation Count: 3

Additional Information:

abstract references cited by index terms collaborative colleagues

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/10.1145/1276318.1276340 What is a DOI?

ABSTRACT

A knowledge representation language for defeasible legal rules is defined, whose semantics is purely procedural, based on Walton's theory of argumentation and Loui's break with the relational tradition in 'Process and Policy'. Legal rules are interpreted as reasoning policies, by mapping them in the semantics to argumentation schemes. The reasoning process is regulated by argumentation protocols. Reasoning with legal rules is viewed as applying schemes for arguments from rules to construct arguments to be put forward in dialogues.

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	Thomas F. Gordon, Pleadings Game: An Artificial Intelligence Model of Procedural Justice, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Norwell, MA, 1995
	2	T. F. Gordon, H. Prakken, and D. Walton. The Carneades model of argument and burden of proof. Artificial Intelligence, 2007. In Press.
	3	Jaap Hage, Monological reason-based logic: a low level integration of rule-based reasoning and case-based reasoning, Proceedings of the 4th international conference on Artificial intelligence and law, p.30-39, June 15-18, 1993, Amsterdam, The Netherlands [doi>10.1145/158976.158980]
	4	R. P. Loui. Process and policy: resource-bounded non-demonstrative reasoning. Computational Intelligence, 14:1--38, 1998.
	5	J. Pollock. Defeasible reasoning. Cognitive Science, 11(4):481--518, 1987.
	6	H. Prakken and G. Sartor. A dialectical model of assessing conflicting argument in legal reasoning. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 4(3-4):331--368, 1996.
	7	J. Rawls. A Theory of Justice. Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1971.
	8	Bart Verheij, Dialectical argumentation with argumentation schemes: an approach to legal logic, Artificial Intelligence and Law, v.11 n.2-3, p.167-195, January 2003 [doi>10.1023/B:ARTI.0000046008.49443.36]
	9	D. Walton. Fundamentals of Critical Argumentation. Cambridge University Press, 2006.

CITED BY 3

	Alexander Boer , Radboud Winkels , Fabio Vitali, Proposed XML Standards for Law: MetaLex and LKIF, Proceeding of the 2007 conference on Legal Knowledge and Information Systems: JURIX 2007: The Twentieth Annual Conference, p.19-28, June 15, 2007
	Katarzyna Budzyńska , Magdalena Kacprzak , Paweł Rembelski, Perseus. Software for Analyzing Persuasion Process, Fundamenta Informaticae, v.93 n.1-3, p.65-79, January 2009
	Rinke Hoekstra , Joost Breuker , Marcello Di Bello , Alexander Boer, LKIF Core: Principled Ontology Development for the Legal Domain, Proceeding of the 2009 conference on Law, Ontologies and the Semantic Web: Channelling the Legal Information Flood, p.21-52, July 08, 2009