Analyzing open source license compatibility issues with Carneades

Proceedings of the International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law

Volumn , Issue , 2011, Pages 51-55

  Gordon, Thomas F ^a  

^a FRAUNHOFER FOKUS   (Germany)

Author keywords

computational models of argument; copyright law; legal knowledge representation

Indexed keywords

ARGUMENTATION SCHEMES; COMPUTATIONAL MODEL; COPYRIGHT LAW; DEFEASIBLE RULES; FORMAL REPRESENTATIONS; KNOWLEDGE APPLICATION; LEGAL KNOWLEDGE REPRESENTATION; OPEN SOURCE SOFTWARE; OPEN SOURCES; SOFTWARE SYSTEMS;

ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE; COMPUTER SOFTWARE; KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT; KNOWLEDGE REPRESENTATION;

OPEN SYSTEMS;

EID: 80052416037     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: 10.1145/2018358.2018364     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (18)

1. Baader, F., Calvanese, D., McGuinness, D., Nardi, D., and Patel-Schneider, P., eds. The Description Logic Handbook -Theory, Implementation and Applications. Cambridge University Press, 2003.
2. Ballnat, S. and Gordon, T.F. Goal Selection in Argumentation Processes - A Formal Model of Abduction in Argument Evaluation Structures. Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Computational Models of Argument (COMMA), IOS Press (2010), 51-62.
3. Bing, J. Uncertainty, Decisions and Information Systems. In C. Ciampi, ed., Artificial Intelligence and Legal Information Systems. North-Holland, 1982.
4. Brewka, G., Dunne, P.E., and Woltran, S. Relating the Semantics of Abstract Dialectical Frameworks and Standard AFs. Proceedings of the Twenty-Second International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI-2011), (2011), in press.
5. Brewka, G. and Gordon, T.F. Carneades and Abstract Dialectical Frameworks: A Reconstruction. Proceedings ofthe Third International Conference on Computational Models of Argument (COMMA), IOS Press (2010), 3-12.
6. ESTRELLA Project. The Legal Knowledge Interchange Format (LKIF). 2008.
7. Fiedler, H. Expert Systems as a Tool for Drafting Legal Decisions. In A.A. Martino and F.S. Natali, eds., Logica, Informatica, Diritto. Consiglio Nazionale delle Richere, Florence, 1985, 265-274.
8. Gijzel, B.V. and Prakken, H. Relating Carneades with abstract argumentation. Proceedings of the Twenty-Second International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI-2011), (2011), in press.
9. Gordon, T.F., Prakken, H., and Walton, D. The Carneades Model of Argument and Burden of Proof. Artificial Intelligence 171, 10-11 (2007), 875-896.
10. Gordon, T.F. and Walton, D. Proof Burdens and Standards. In I. Rahwan and G. Simari, eds., Argumentation in Artificial Intelligence. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Germany, 2009, 239- 260.
11. Gordon, T.F. and Walton, D. Legal Reasoning with Argumentation Schemes. 12th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law (ICAIL 2009), ACM Press (2009), 137-146.
12. Gordon, T.F. Constructing Arguments with a Computational Model of an Argumentation Scheme for Legal Rules -Interpreting Legal Rules as Reasoning Policies. Proceedings of the Eleventh International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, (2007), 117-121.
13. Gordon, T.F. Visualizing Carneades Argument Graphs. Law, Probability and Risk 6, 2007, 109-117.
14. Gordon, T.F. An Overview of the Carneades Argumentation Support System. In C.W. Tindale and C. Reed, eds., Dialectics, Dialogue and Argumentation. An Examination of Douglas Walton-s Theories of Reasoning. College Publications, 2010, 145-156.
15. Gordon, T.F. Report on a Prototype Decision Support System for OSS License Compatibility Issues. 2010.
16. Governatori, G. On the Relationship between Carneades and Defeasible Logic. Proceedings of the International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law (ICAIL-2011), (2011), in press, this volume.
17. McCarty, L.T. Some Arguments About Legal Arguments. International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, (1997), 215-224.
18. Walton, D., Reed, C., and Macagno, F. Argumentation Schemes. Cambridge University Press, 2008.