Constructing legal arguments with rules in the Legal Knowledge Interchange Format (LKIF)

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

Volumn 4884 LNAI, Issue , 2007, Pages 162-184

  Gordon, Thomas F ^a  

^a FRAUNHOFER FOKUS   (Germany)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

INFORMATION THEORY; INTERCHANGES; INTERSECTIONS; LAWS AND LEGISLATION; LINGUISTICS; MARKUP LANGUAGES; ONTOLOGY; QUERY LANGUAGES;

ARGUMENTATION SYSTEMS; EUROPEANS; EXAMPLE BASED; FAMILY LAWS; KNOWLEDGE REPRESENTATION LANGUAGES; LEGAL ARGUMENTS; LEGAL CASES; LEGAL KNOWLEDGES;

KNOWLEDGE REPRESENTATION;

EID: 56749184253     PISSN: 03029743     EISSN: 16113349     Source Type: Book Series    
DOI: 10.1007/978-3-540-85569-9-11     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (38)

1. Aleven, V.: Teaching Case-Based Argumentation Through a Model and Examples. Ph.d., University of Pittsburgh (1997)
2. Alexy, R.: A Theory of Legal Argumentation. Oxford University Press, New York (1989)
3. Ashley, K.D.: Modeling Legal Argument: Reasoning with Cases and Hypotheticals. Artificial Intelligence and Legal Reasoning Series. MIT Press, Bradford Books (1990)
4. Baader, F., Calvanese, D., McGuinness, D., Nardi, D., Patel-Schneider, P. (eds.): The Description Logic Handbook - Theory, Implementation and Applications. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2003)
5. Bayles, M.D.: Procedural Justice; Allocating to Individuals. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht (1990)
6. Bechhofer, S.: The DIG Description Logic interface: DIG 1.1. Technical report, D1 Implementation Group, University of Manchester (2003)
7. Beckett, D.: Rdf/xml syntax specification (revised) (February 2004), http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-rdf-syntax-grammar-20040210/
8. Berners-Lee, T.: Notation 3 (1998), http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/ Notation3
9. Berners-Lee, T., Hendler, J., Lassila, O.: The semantic web. Scientific American 284(5), 34-43 (2001)
10. Clark, J.: Relax ng (September 2003), http://relaxng.org
11. Deborah, S.U.D.L.M., McGuinness, L. (Knowledge Systems Laboratory and van Harmelen, F.: OWL web ontology language overview, http://www.w3.org/TR/owl- features/
12. Ellson, J., Gansner, E., Koutsofios, L., North, S.C., Woodhull, G.: Graphviz - open source graph drawing tools. In: Mutzel, P., Jünger, M., Leipert, S. (eds.) GD 2001. LNCS, vol. 2265, pp. 483-484. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)
13. Fallside, D.C., Walmsley, P.: Xml schema part o: Primer, 2nd edn (2004), http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-0/
14. S.C.: for Biomedical Informatics Research. The protege ontology editor and knowledge acquisition system (October 2007), http://protege.stanford.edu/
15. Gardner, A.: An Artificial Intelligence Approach to Legal Reasoning. MIT Press, Cambridge (1987)
16. Gordon, T.F.: An abductive theory of legal issues. International Journal of ManMachine Studies 35, 95-118 (1991)
17. Gordon, T.F.: The Pleadings Game; An Artificial Intelligence Model of Procedural Justice. Springer, New York, Book version of 1993 Ph.D. Thesis; University of Darmstadt (1995)
18. Gordon, T.F.: Constructing arguments with a computational model of an argumentation scheme for legal rules. In: Proceedings of the Eleventh International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, pp. 117-121 (2007)
19. Gordon, T.F., Prakken, H., Walton, D.: The Carneades model of argument and burden of proof. Artificial Intelligence 171(10-11), 875-896 (2007)
20. Grosof, B.N., Horrocks, I., Volz, R., Decker, S.: Description logic programs: Combining logic programs with description logics. In: Proceedings of the Twelth International World Wide Web Conference (WWW 2003), Budapest, Hungary, May 2003, pp. 48-57. ACM, New York (2003)
21. Hage, J.C.: Monological reason-based logic, a low level integration of rule-based reasoning and case-based reasoning. In: Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, pp. 30-39. ACM, New York (1993)
22. Hart, H.L.A.: The Concept of Law. Clarendon Press, Oxford (1961)
23. Hewlett-Packard. Jena - a semantic web framework (October 2007), http://jena.sourceforge.net/
24. Horrocks, I., Patel-Schneider, P., Boley, H., Tabet, S., Grosof, B.N., Dean, M.: SWRL: A semantic web rule language combining OW'L and RuleML, http://www.w3.org/Submission/SWRL/
25. Loui, R.P.: Process and policy: resource-bounded non-demonstrative reasoning. Computational Intelligence 14, 1-38 (1998)
26. McGuinness, D.L., van Harmelen, F.: OWL Web Ontology Language overview, http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-features/
27. Pollock, J.: Defeasible reasoning. Cognitive Science 11(4), 481-518 (1987)
28. Prakken, H., Sartor, G.: A dialectical model of assessing conflicting argument in legal reasoning. Artificial Intelligence and Law 4(3-4), 331-368 (1996)
29. Prakken, H., Sartor, G.: Modelling reasoning with precedents in a formal dialogue game. Artificial Intelligence and Law 6(2-4), 231-287 (1998)
30. T. P. S. Project. PLT Scheme, http://www.plt-scheme.org/
31. Rawls, J.: A Theory of Justice. Belknap Press of Harvard University Press (1971)
32. Rissland, E.L., Ashley, K.D., Loui, R.P.: AI and law: A fruitful synergy. Artificial Intelligence 150(1-2), 1-15 (2003)
33. Routen, T., Bench-Capon, T.: Hierarchical formalizations. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies 35, 69-93 (1991)
34. Sartor, G.: Reasoning with factors. Technical report, University of Bologna (2005)
35. TopQuadrant. Topbraid composer (October 2007), http://www. topbraidcomposer.org/
36. Verheij, B.: Dialectical argumentation with argumentation schemes: An approach to legal logic. Artificial Intelligence and Law 11(2-3), 167-195 (2003)
37. Walton, D.: Fundamentals of Critical Argumentation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2006)
38. Wyner, A., Bench-Capon, T.: Argument schemes for legal case-based reasoning. In: JURIX 2007: The Twentieth Annual Conference on Legal Knowledge and Information Systems (2007)