The Zeno argumentation framework

Subscribe (Full Service)


	Search: The ACM Digital Library The Guide

	Feedback

The Zeno argumentation framework

Full text

Pdf (1.51 MB)

Source

International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law archive
Proceedings of the 6th international conference on Artificial intelligence and law table of contents

Melbourne, Australia

Pages: 10 - 18

Year of Publication: 1997

ISBN:0-89791-924-6

Authors

Thomas F. Gordon	German National Research Center for Information Technology
Nikos Karacapilidis	INRIA Sophia Antipolis, Action AID

Sponsors

SIGART: ACM Special Interest Group on Artificial Intelligence
IAAIL : Intl Asso for Artifical Intel & Law
UMIACS : U of MD Inst for Advanced Comp Studies
University of Melbourne : University of Melbourne

Publisher

ACM New York, NY, USA

Bibliometrics

Downloads (6 Weeks): 7, Downloads (12 Months): 53, Citation Count: 40

Additional Information:

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/10.1145/261618.261622 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.

	Brewka and Gordon, 1994	Brewka, G. and Gordon, T. F. (1994). How to buy a porsche, an approach to defeasible decision making. In Working Notes of the AAAI-94 Workshop on Computational Dialectics, pages 28-38, Seattle, Washington.
	Doyle, 1979	Doyle, J. (1979). A truth maintenance system. At. ttftcial Intelligence, 12:231-272.
	Farley and Freeman, 1995	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 [doi>10.1145/222092.222227]
	Geffner and Pearl, 1992	Hector Geffner , Judea Pearl, Conditional entailment: bridging two approaches to default reasoning, Artificial Intelligence, v.53 n.2-3, p.209-244, Feb. 1992 [doi>10.1016/0004-3702(92)90071-5]
	Gordon, 1995	Gordon, T. E (1995). The Pleadings Game. Kluwer.
	Gordon, 1996	Thomas F. Gordon, Systems to support cooperative work: computational dialectics, Computers as assistants: a new generation of support systems, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., Mahwah, NJ, 1996
	Hage et al., 1994	Jaap C. Hage , Ronald Leenes , Arno R. Lodder, Hard cases: a procedural approach, Artificial Intelligence and Law, v.2 n.1, p.113-167, 1993/1994
	Jones and Sergot, 1992	Jones, A. J. I. and Sergot, M. (1992). Deontic logic in the representation of law: Towards a methodology. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 1 (1):45-64.
	Kunz and Rittel, 1970	Kunz, W. and Rittel, H. W. (1970). Issues as elements of information systems. Technical Report 013 i, Universitat Stuttgart, Institut ffir Grundlagen der Planung.
	Lorenz, 1961	Lorenz, K. (1961). Arithmetik und Logik als Spiele. Phl) thesis, Kiel.
	Lorenzen, 1969	Lorenzen, P. (1969). Normative Logic and Ethics. BI-Hochschultaschenbficher.
	Pollock, 1988	Pollock, J. (1988). Defeasible reasoning. Cognitive Science, pages 481-518.
	Prakken, 1995	Henry Prakken, From logic to dialectics in legal argument, Proceedings of the 5th international conference on Artificial intelligence and law, p.165-174, May 21-24, 1995, College Park, Maryland, United States [doi>10.1145/222092.222230]
	Rittel and Webber, 1973	Rittel, H. W. J. and Webber, M. M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences, pages 155-169.
	Rumbaugh, 1991	James Rumbaugh , Michael Blaha , William Premerlani , Frederick Eddy , William Lorensen, Object-oriented modeling and design, Prentice-Hall, Inc., Upper Saddle River, NJ, 1991
	Simari and Loui, 1992	Guillermo R. Simari , Ronald P. Loui, A mathematical treatment of defeasible reasoning and its implementation, Artificial Intelligence, v.53 n.2-3, p.125-157, Feb. 1992 [doi>10.1016/0004-3702(92)90069-A]
	Suchman, 1994	Suchman, L. (1994). Do categories have politics? the language/action perspective reconsidered. Computer. Supported Cooperative Work, pages 177-190.
	Winograd, 1994	Winograd, T. (1994). Categories, disciplines, and social coordination. Computer-Supported Cooperative Work, 2:191-197.

CITED BY 40

	Bart Verheij, Automated argument assistance for lawyers, Proceedings of the 7th international conference on Artificial intelligence and law, p.43-52, June 14-17, 1999, Oslo, Norway
	Marius J. A. Duker , Arno R. Lodder, Sentencing and information management: consistency and the particularities of a case, Proceedings of the 7th international conference on Artificial intelligence and law, p.100-107, June 14-17, 1999, Oslo, Norway
	John Yearwood , Andrew Stranieri, The integration of retrieval, reasoning and drafting for refugee law: a third generation legal knowledge based system, Proceedings of the 7th international conference on Artificial intelligence and law, p.117-125, June 14-17, 1999, Oslo, Norway
	Carlos Iván Chesñevar , Ana Gabriela Maguitman , Ronald Prescott Loui, Logical models of argument, ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR), v.32 n.4, p.337-383, Dec. 2000
	Henry Prakken, Modelling reasoning about evidence in legal procedure, Proceedings of the 8th international conference on Artificial intelligence and law, p.119-128, May 2001, St. Louis, Missouri, United States
	Du Li , Zhenghao Wang , Richard R. Muntz, “Got COCA?” A new perspective in building electronic meeting systems, ACM SIGSOFT Software Engineering Notes, v.24 n.2, p.89-98, March 1999
	Bart Verheij, Artificial argument assistants for defeasible argumentation, Artificial Intelligence, v.150 n.1-2, p.291-324, November 2003
	Björn Decker , Jörg Rech , Klaus-Dieter Althoff , Andreas Klotz , Edda Leopold , Angie Voss, eParticipative process learning: process-oriented experience management and conflict solving, Data & Knowledge Engineering, v.52 n.1, p.5-31, January 2005
	Pengzhu Zhang , Jingle Sun , Hsinchun Chen, Frame-based argumentation for group decision task generation and identification, Decision Support Systems, v.39 n.4, p.643-659, June 2005
	John L. Yearwood , Andrew Stranieri, The generic/actual argument model of practical reasoning, Decision Support Systems, v.41 n.2, p.358-379, January 2006
	CHRIS REED , DOUGLAS WALTON , FABRIZIO MACAGNO, Argument diagramming in logic, law and artificial intelligence, The Knowledge Engineering Review, v.22 n.1, p.87-109, March 2007
	Daniela V. Carbogim , David Robertson , John Lee, Argument-based applications to knowledge engineering, The Knowledge Engineering Review, v.15 n.2, p.119-149, June 2000
	Anthony Hunter, Hybrid argumentation systems for structured news reports, The Knowledge Engineering Review, v.16 n.4, p.295-329, December 2001
	Henry Prakken, Modelling Defeasibility in Law: Logic or Procedure?, Fundamenta Informaticae, v.48 n.2-3, p.253-271, April 2001
	Katie Atkinson , Trevor Bench-Capon , Peter Mcburney, PARMENIDES: facilitating deliberation in democracies, Artificial Intelligence and Law, v.14 n.4, p.261-275, January 2006
	Carlos Iván Chesñevar , Ana Gabriela Maguitman , Guillermo Ricardo Simari, Argument-based critics and recommenders: a qualitative perspective on user support systems, Data & Knowledge Engineering, v.59 n.2, p.293-319, November 2006
	Douglas Walton, How to make and defend a proposal in a deliberation dialogue, Artificial Intelligence and Law, v.14 n.3, p.177-239, January 2006
	Zaheeruddin Asif , Heinz K. Klein, Open and free deliberation: A prerequisite for positive design, Information and Organization, v.19 n.3, p.186-197, July, 2009
	Iyad Rahwan , Fouad Zablith , Chris Reed, Laying the foundations for a World Wide Argument Web, Artificial Intelligence, v.171 n.10-15, p.897-921, July, 2007
	Katie Atkinson , Trevor Bench-Capon, Argumentation and standards of proof, Proceedings of the 11th international conference on Artificial intelligence and law, June 04-08, 2007, Stanford, California
	Martin Caminada , Leila Amgoud, On the evaluation of argumentation formalisms, Artificial Intelligence, v.171 n.5-6, p.286-310, April, 2007
	Peter McBurney , Simon Parsons, Representing Epistemic Uncertainty by Means of Dialectical Argumentation, Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence, v.32 n.1-4, p.125-169, August 2001
	Nikos Karacapilidis , Dimitris Papadias, A computational approach for argumentative discourse in multi‐agent decision making environments, AI Communications, v.11 n.1, p.21-33, January 1998
	Carlos Chesñevar , Jarred McGinnis , Sanjay Modgil , Iyad Rahwan , Chris Reed , Guillermo Simari , Matthew South , Gerard Vreeswijk , Steven Willmott, Towards an argument interchange format, The Knowledge Engineering Review, v.21 n.4, p.293-316, December 2006
	Iyad Rahwan, Guest Editorial: Argumentation in Multi-Agent Systems, Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems, v.11 n.2, p.115-125, September 2005
	Iyad Rahwan , Sarvapali D. Ramchurn , Nicholas R. Jennings , Peter Mcburney , Simon Parsons , Liz Sonenberg, Argumentation-based negotiation, The Knowledge Engineering Review, v.18 n.4, p.343-375, December 2003
	Thomas F. Gordon , Henry Prakken , Douglas Walton, The Carneades model of argument and burden of proof, Artificial Intelligence, v.171 n.10-15, p.875-896, July, 2007
	Peter McBurney , Simon Parsons, Games That Agents Play: A Formal Framework for Dialogues between Autonomous Agents, Journal of Logic, Language and Information, v.11 n.3, p.315-334, Summer 2002
	Jeffrey Heer , Maneesh Agrawala, Design considerations for collaborative visual analytics, Information Visualization, v.7 n.1, p.49-62, March 2008
	Caiquan Xiong , Ying Pan , Dehua Li, A discussion information-structuring model based on the Toulmin formalism, Proceedings of the 1st international conference on Forensic applications and techniques in telecommunications, information, and multimedia and workshop, January 21-23, 2008, Adelaide, Australia
	Chris Reed , Simon Wells, Dialogical Argument as an Interface to Complex Debates, IEEE Intelligent Systems, v.22 n.6, p.60-65, November 2007
	Trevor Bench-Capon , Sanjay Modgil, Case law in extended argumentation frameworks, Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, June 08-12, 2009, Barcelona, Spain
	Thomas F. Gordon , Douglas Walton, The Carneades Argumentation FrameworkUsing Presumptions and Exceptions to Model Critical Questions, Proceeding of the 2006 conference on Computational Models of Argument: Proceedings of COMMA 2006, p.195-207, May 25, 2006
	Katie Atkinson, Value-Based Argumentation for Democratic Decision Support, Proceeding of the 2006 conference on Computational Models of Argument: Proceedings of COMMA 2006, p.47-58, May 25, 2006
	Ebrahim Bagheri , Ali A. Ghorbani, A belief-theoretic framework for the collaborative development and integration of para-consistent conceptual models, Journal of Systems and Software, v.82 n.4, p.707-729, April, 2009
	Adam Wyner, An ontology in OWL for legal case-based reasoning, Artificial Intelligence and Law, v.16 n.4, p.361-387, December 2008
	Charles Unwin, An object model for use in oral and written advocacy, Artificial Intelligence and Law, v.16 n.4, p.389-402, December 2008
	Sefora Junqueira , Evandro Costa, Computer Intelligent Support for the ADR/ODR Domain, Proceeding of the 2007 conference on Legal Knowledge and Information Systems: JURIX 2007: The Twentieth Annual Conference, p.69-78, June 15, 2007
	Katie Atkinson , Trevor Bench-Capon, Zeno Revisited: Representation of Persuasive Argument, Proceeding of the 2006 conference on Legal Knowledge and Information Systems: JURIX 2006: The Nineteenth Annual Conference, p.1-10, June 02, 2006
	Fernando Lopes , Michael Wooldridge , A. Q. Novais, Negotiation among autonomous computational agents: principles, analysis and challenges, Artificial Intelligence Review, v.29 n.1, p.1-44, March 2008