A Carneades reconstruction of Popov v Hayashi
Artificial Intelligence and Law 20 (1):37-56 (2012)
Abstract
Carneades is an open source argument mapping application and a programming library for building argumentation support tools. In this paper, Carneades’ support for argument reconstruction, evaluation and visualization is illustrated by modeling most of the factual and legal arguments in Popov v HayashiAuthor's Profile
DOI
10.1007/s10506-012-9120-0
Links
PhilArchive
External links
(no proxy)
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Through your library
- Sign in / register and customize your OpenURL resolver
- Configure custom resolver
My notes
Similar books and articles
Representing Popov v Hayashi with dimensions and factors.T. J. M. Bench-Capon - 2012 - Artificial Intelligence and Law 20 (1):15-35.
Introduction to special issue on modelling Popov v. Hayashi.Katie Atkinson - 2012 - Artificial Intelligence and Law 20 (1):1-14.
Reconstructing Popov v. Hayashi in a framework for argumentation with structured arguments and Dungean semantics.Henry Prakken - 2012 - Artificial Intelligence and Law 20 (1):57-82.
A legal case OWL ontology with an instantiation of Popov v. Hayashi.Adam Wyner & Rinke Hoekstra - 2012 - Artificial Intelligence and Law 20 (1):83-107.
Relating Carneades with abstract argumentation via the ASPIC+ framework for structured argumentation.Bas van Gijzel & Henry Prakken - 2012 - Argument and Computation 3 (1):21 - 47.
The carneades argumentation framework: Using presumptions and exceptions to model critical questions.Douglas Walton with Chris Reed - manuscript
The Carneades model of argument and burden of proof.Thomas F. Gordon, Henry Prakken & Douglas Walton - 2007 - Artificial Intelligence 171 (10-15):875-896.
Can an Ancient Argument of Carneades on Cardinal Virtues and Divine Attributes be Used to Disprove the Existence of God?Douglas Walton - 1999 - Philo 2 (2):5-13.
Community and utopia: A transcendental deduction.Stefan Popov - 1990 - Philosophy and Social Criticism 16 (4):291-302.
No reconstruction, no impenetrability (at least not much).Shimon Edelman - 1999 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 22 (3):376-376.
Analytics
Added to PP
2012-12-28
Downloads
58 (#205,910)
6 months
2 (#297,737)
2012-12-28
Downloads
58 (#205,910)
6 months
2 (#297,737)
Historical graph of downloads
Author's Profile
Citations of this work
In memoriam Douglas N. Walton: the influence of Doug Walton on AI and law.Katie Atkinson, Trevor Bench-Capon, Floris Bex, Thomas F. Gordon, Henry Prakken, Giovanni Sartor & Bart Verheij - 2020 - Artificial Intelligence and Law 28 (3):281-326.
Argumentation schemes in AI and Law.Katie Atkinson & Trevor Bench-Capon - 2021 - Argument and Computation 12 (3):417-434.
Thirty years of Artificial Intelligence and Law: the first decade. [REVIEW]Guido Governatori, Trevor Bench-Capon, Bart Verheij, Michał Araszkiewicz, Enrico Francesconi & Matthias Grabmair - 2022 - Artificial Intelligence and Law 30 (4):481-519.
Explanation in AI and law: Past, present and future.Katie Atkinson, Trevor Bench-Capon & Danushka Bollegala - 2020 - Artificial Intelligence 289 (C):103387.
Applying Recent Argumentation Methods to Some Ancient Examples of Plausible Reasoning.Douglas Walton, Christopher W. Tindale & Thomas F. Gordon - 2014 - Argumentation 28 (1):85-119.
References found in this work
The Uses of Argument.Stephen Edelston Toulmin - 1958 - Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games.Phan Minh Dung - 1995 - Artificial Intelligence 77 (2):321-357.
Dialectics and the Macrostructure of Arguments: A Theory of Argument Structure.James B. Freeman - 1991 - Berlin and New York: Foris Publications.
