Theory based explanation of case law domains

Proceedings of the International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law

Volumn , Issue , 2001, Pages 12-21

  Bench Capon, Trevor ^a   Sartor, Giovanni ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF LIVERPOOL   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF BOLOGNA   (Italy)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CASE BASED; CASE LAW; FORMAL DESCRIPTION; THEORY CONSTRUCTION;

ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE;

CASE BASED REASONING;

EID: 77950556541     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: 10.1145/383535.383537     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (17)

1. Aleven, V., (1997). Teaching Case Based Argumentation Through an Example and Models. PhD Thesis. The University of Pittsburgh.
2. Alexy, R., & A. Peczenik. 1990. The Concept of Coherence and Its Significance for Discursive Rationality. Ratio Juris 3: 130-147.
3. Ashley. K.D., (1990). Modelling Legal Argument. Bradford Books, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.
4. Bench-Capon, T.J.M., (2000). The Missing Link Revisited: The Role of Teleology in Representing Legal Arguments. Submitted to Artificial Intelligence and Law.
5. Bench-Capon, T.J.M., and Sartor, G., (2000). Theory Based Dialectics for Resolving Disagreement in Law. ECAI workshop on Computation Dialectics, Berlin, August, 2000.
6. Bench-Capon, T.J.M., and Sartor, G., (2000). Using Values and Theories to Resolve Disagreement in Law. In J. Breuker, R. Leenes and R. Winkels (eds), Legal Knowledge and Information Systems: Jurix 2000. IOS Press, Amsterdam, pp 73-84.
7. Berman, D.H., and Hafner, C.L., (1993). Representing Teleological Structure in Case Based Reasoning: The Missing Link. In Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on AI and Law, ACM Press, New York, pp 50-59.
8. Hage, J.C. (2000). Goal Based Theory Evaluation. In J. Breuker, R. Leenes and R. Winkels (eds), Legal Knowledge and Information Systems: Jurix 2000. IOS Press, Amsterdam, pp 59-72.
9. Levi, E.H., 1948. An Introduction to Legal Reasoning. University of Chicago Press.
10. Perelman, C., (1980). Justice, Law and Argument. Reidel: Dordrecht.
11. Prakken, H. & G. Sartor. 1996. A Dialectical Model of Assessing Conflicting Arguments in Legal Reasoning. Artificial Intelligence and Law 4: 331-368.
12. Prakken, H. & G. Sartor. 1998. Modelling Reasoning with Precedents in a Formal Dialogue Game. Artificial Intelligence and Law 6: 231-287.
13. Prakken, H., (2000). An exercise in formalising teleological case based reasoning. In J. Breuker, R. Leenes and R. Winkels (eds), Legal Knowledge and Information Systems: Jurix 2000. IOS Press, Amsterdam, pp 49-57.
14. Roth, B., (2000). New Reasoning Patterns in Analogical Case Based reasoning: An Informal Investigation. In J. Breuker, R. Leenes and R. Winkels (eds), Legal Knowledge and Information Systems: Jurix 2000. IOS Press, Amsterdam, pp 113-122.
15. Sartor, G., (2000). Telelogical Arguments and Theory Based Dialectics. Submitted to Artificial Intelligence and Law
16. Skalak, B.B., and Rissland, E.L., (1991). Arguments and Cases: An Inevitable Intertwining. Artificial Intelligence and Law, Vol 1 No 1, 3-44.
17. Thagard, P. 1992. Conceptual Revolutions. Princeton(NJ): Princeton University Press.