Identifying audience preferences in legal and social domains

Lecture Notes in Computer Science (including subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics)

Volumn 3180, Issue , 2004, Pages 518-527

  Dunne, Paul E ^a   Bench Capon, Trevor ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF LIVERPOOL   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE; COMPUTER SCIENCE; COMPUTERS;

ARGUMENTATION FRAMEWORKS; COMPUTATIONAL PROPERTIES; RATIONAL DISAGREEMENT; SOCIAL DOMAINS; SOCIAL VALUES; VALUE-BASED FRAMEWORKS;

EXPERT SYSTEMS;

EID: 35048881123     PISSN: 03029743     EISSN: 16113349     Source Type: Book Series    
DOI: 10.1007/978-3-540-30075-5_50     Document Type: Article

References (15)

1. T.J.M. Bench-Capon 'Representation of Case Law as an Argumentation Framework' in Legal Knowledge and Information Systems, eds., T. Bench-Capon, A. Daskalopoulu and R. Winkels, IOS Press: Amsterdam. 103-112 (2002)
2. T.J.M. Bench-Capon, 'Agreeing to differ: modelling persuasive dialogue between parties with different values', Informal Logic, 22 3 (2003).
3. T.J.M. Bench-Capon, 'Persuasion in Practical Argument Using Value Based Argumentation Frameworks', Journal of Logic and Computation, 13 3 429-48 (2003).
4. G. Christie, The Notion of an Ideal Audience in Legal Argument, Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht, (2000).
5. Y. Dimopoulos and A. Torres, 'Graph theoretical structures in logic programs and default theories', Theoretical Computer Science, 170, 209-244, (1996).
6. P.M. Dung, 'On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming, and N-person games', Artificial Intelligence, 77, 321-357, (1995).
7. P.E. Dunne and T.J.M. Bench-Capon, 'Coherence in finite argument systems', Artificial Intelligence, 141, 187-203, (2002).
8. P.E. Dunne and T.J.M. Bench-Capon, 'Complexity in value-based argument systems'. Technical Report, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Univ. of Liverpool, February 2004.
9. P.E. Dunne and T.J.M. Bench-Capon, 'Two party immediate response disputes: properties and efficiency', Artificial Intelligence, 149, 221-250, (2003).
10. H. Jakobovits and D. Vermeir, 'Dialectic semantics for argumentation frameworks', in Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on Artifi cial Intelligence and Law (ICAIL-99), ACM SIGART, pp. 53-62, N. Y., (June 1999). ACM Press.
11. C. Perelman, Justice, Law and Argument, Reidel: Dordrecht, 1980.
12. H. Prakken, Logical Tools for Modelling Legal Argument, Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1997.
13. J.R. Searle, Rationality in Action. MIT Press, Cambridge Mass., 2001
14. G. Vreeswijk and H. Prakken, 'Credulous and sceptical argument games for preferred semantics.', in Proceedings of JELIA 2000, The 7th European Workshop on Logic for Artifi cial Intelligence., pp. 224-238, Berlin, (2000). Springer LNAI 1919, Springer Verlag.
15. D.N. Walton, Argumentation Schemes for Presumptive Reasoning, Erbaum: Mahwah, NJ.