Modelling reasoning about evidence in legal procedure

Proceedings of the International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law

Volumn , Issue , 2001, Pages 119-128

  Prakken, Henry ^a  

^a UTRECHT UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARGUMENTATIVE DIALOGUES; CURRENT MODELS; DIALOGUE GAME;

SPEECH PROCESSING;

ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE;

EID: 77950575298     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: 10.1145/383535.383550     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (19)

1. T. Bench-Capon. Specification and implementation of Toulmin dialogue game. In Legal Knowledge-Based Systems. JURIX: The Eleventh Conference, pages 5-19, Nijmegen, 1998. Gerard Noodt Instituut.
2. G. Brewka. Dynamic argument systems: a formal model of argumentation processes based on situation calculus. Journal of Logic and Computation, 2001. To appear.
3. T. Gordon. The Pleadings Game: an exercise in computational dialectics. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 2:239-292, 1994.
4. T. Gordon and N. Karaçapilidis. The Zeno argumentation framework. In Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, pages 10-18, New York, 1997. ACM Press.
5. J. Hage, R. Leenes, and A. Lodder. Hard cases: a procedural approach. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 2:113-166, 1994.
6. H. Jakobovits. On the Theory of Argumentation Frameworks. Doctoral dissertation Free University Brussels, 2000.
7. R. Leenes. Hercules of Karneades: Hard Cases in Recht en Rechtsinformatica. (Hercules or Karneades: hard cases in law and legal informatics). Twente University Press, Enschede, 1998. (In Dutch).
8. A. Lodder. DiaLaw. On Legal Justification and Dialogical Models of Argumentation. Law and Philosophy Library. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht/Boston/London, 1999.
9. R. Loui. Process and policy: resource-bounded non-demonstrative reasoning. Computational Intelligence, 14:1-38, 1998.
10. R. Loui, J. Norman, J. Alpeter, D. Pinkard, D. Craven, J. Linsday, and M. Foltz. Progress on Room 5: A testbed for public interactive semi-formal legal argumentation. In Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, pages 207-214, New York, 1997. ACM Press.
11. J. MacKenzie. Question-begging in non-cumulative systems. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 8:117-133, 1979.
12. J. Pollock. Cognitive Carpentry. A Blueprint for How to Build a Person. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1995.
13. H. Prakken. On dialogue systems with speech acts, arguments, and counterarguments. In Proceedings of the 7th European Workshop on Logic for Artificial Intelligence (JELIA'2000), number 1919 in Springer Lecture Notes in AI, pages 224-238, Berlin, 2000. Springer Verlag.
14. H. Prakken. Modelling defeasibility in law: logic or procedure? Fundamenta Informaticae, 2001. To appear.
15. H. Prakken. Relating protocols for dynamic dispute with logics for defeasible argumentation. Synthese, 127:187-219, 2001.
16. H. Prakken and T.F. Gordon. Rules of order for electronic group decision making - a formalization methodology. In J.A. Padget (ed.) Collaboration between Human and Artificial Societies. Coordination and Agent-Based Distributed Computing, Springer Lecture Notes in AI 1624, 246-263, Berlin, 1998.
17. H. Prakken and G. Sartor. A dialectical model of assessing conflicting arguments in legal reasoning. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 4:331-368, 1996.
18. G. Vreeswijk. The computational value of debate in defeasible reasoning. Argumentation, 9:305-341, 1995.
19. D. Walton and E. Krabbe. Commitment in Dialogue. Basic Concepts of Interpersonal Reasoning. State University of New York Press, Albany, NY, 1995.