Graduate studies at Western
Artificial Intelligence and Law 17 (3):167-182 (2009)
|Abstract||To create a programming environment for contract dispute resolution, we propose an extension of assumption-based argumentation into modular assumption-based argumentation in which different modules of argumentation representing different knowledge bases for reasoning about beliefs and facts and for representation and reasoning with the legal doctrines could be built and assembled together. A distinct novel feature of modular argumentation in compare with other modular logic-based systems like Prolog is that it allows references to different semantics in the same module at the same time, a feature critically important for application of argumentation in legal domains like contract dispute resolution where the outcomes of court cases often depend on whether credulous or skeptical modes of reasoning were applied by the contract parties. We apply the new framework to model the doctrines of contract breach and mutual mistake.|
|Keywords||Legal doctrines Argumentation Argumentation in law Modular argumentation|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Eveline T. Feteris (2002). A Pragma-Dialectical Approach of the Analysis and Evaluation of Pragmatic Argumentation in a Legal Context. Argumentation 16 (3):349-367.
Kurt Nutting (2002). Legal Practices and the Reason of the Law. Argumentation 16 (1):111-133.
Bart Verheij (2003). Dialectical Argumentation with Argumentation Schemes: An Approach to Legal Logic. [REVIEW] Artificial Intelligence and Law 11 (2-3):167-195.
Floris Bex, Henry Prakken, Chris Reed & Douglas Walton (2003). Towards a Formal Account of Reasoning About Evidence: Argumentation Schemes and Generalisations. [REVIEW] Artificial Intelligence and Law 11 (2-3):125-165.
Dov Guido Boella, Leendert der Torre M. Gabbavany & Serena Villata (forthcoming). Meta-Argumentation Modelling I: Methodology and Techniques. Studia Logica.
Pauline Westerman (2010). Arguing About Goals: The Diminishing Scope of Legal Reasoning. [REVIEW] Argumentation 24 (2):211-226.
Bas van Gijzel & Henry Prakken (2012). Relating Carneades with Abstract Argumentation Via the ASPIC+ Framework for Structured Argumentation. Argument and Computation 3 (1):21 - 47.
Robert A. Kowalski & Francesca Toni (1996). Abstract Argumentation. Artificial Intelligence and Law 4 (3-4):275-296.
Nguyen Duy Hung, Phan Minh Thang & Phan Minh Dung (2011). Modular Argumentation for Modelling Legal Doctrines of Performance Relief. Argument and Computation 1 (1):47-69.
Added to index2009-06-27
Total downloads16 ( #81,852 of 739,396 )
Recent downloads (6 months)0
How can I increase my downloads?