Advertisement

Artificial Intelligence and Law

, Volume 20, Issue 1, pp 37–56 | Cite as

A Carneades reconstruction of Popov v Hayashi

Article

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 Hayashi.

Keywords

Argumentation Visualization Case-based reasoning 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We would like to acknowledge Stefan Ballnat and Matthias Grabmair for their work on implementing the Carneades inference engine and graphical user interface.

References

  1. Atkinson K, Bench-Capon T, McBurney P (2004) Justifying practical reasoning. In Proceedings of the fourth international workshop on computational models of natural argument (CMNA), pp 87–90, Valencia, ECAIGoogle Scholar
  2. Atkinson K, Bench-Capon T, McBurney P (2005) Arguing about cases as practical reasoning. In Proceedings of the 10th international conference on artificial intelligence and law, pp 35–44, BolognaGoogle Scholar
  3. Beardsley MC (1950) Practical logic. Prentice Hall, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  4. Bench-Capon T (2003) Persuasion in practical argument using value-based argumentation frameworks. J Logic Comput 13(3):429–448MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Betz G (2009) Evaluating dialectical structures. J Philos Logic 38(3):283–312MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Black HC (1979) Black’s law dictionary, 5th edn. West Publishing Co, St Paul, MNGoogle Scholar
  7. Conklin J, Begeman M (1988) gIBIS: a hypertext tool for exploratory policy discussion. ACM Transact Office Inf Syst 6(4):303–331CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dung PM (1995) On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games. Artif Intell, 77(2):321–357. ISSN 0004-3702Google Scholar
  9. Freeman JB (1991) Dialectics and the macrostructure of arguments: a theory of argument structure. Walter de Gruyter, BerlinCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Gordon TF (2007) Visualizing Carneades argument graphs. Law Probab Risk 6(1–4):109–117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gordon TF, Karacapilidis N (1997) The Zeno argumentation framework. In Proceedings of the sixth international conference on artificial intelligence and law, pp 10–18, ACM Press, MelbourneGoogle Scholar
  12. Gordon TF, Walton D (2006) Pierson vs. post revisted—a reconstruction using the Carneades argumentation framework. In: Dunne PE, Bench-Capon T (eds). Proceedings of the first international conference on computational models of argument (COMMA 06), IOS Press, LiverpoolGoogle Scholar
  13. Gordon TF, Walton D (2009) Legal reasoning with argumentation schemes. In Hafner CD (ed). 12th international conference on artificial intelligence and law (ICAIL 2009), ACM Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  14. Gordon TF, Prakken H, Walton D (2007) The Carneades model of argument and burden of proof. Artif Intell 171(10–11):875–896MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Karacapilidis N, Papadias D (2001) Computer supported argumentation and collaborative decision making: the HERMES system. Inf Syst 26(4):259–277MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Mochales R, Leven A (2009) Creating an argumentation corpus: do theories apply to real arguments? A case study on the legal argumentation of the echr. In ICAIL ’09: Proceedings of the 12th international conference on artificial intelligence and law, pp 21–30, ACM, New York, NYGoogle Scholar
  17. Reed CA, Rowe GWA (2004) Araucaria: software for argument analysis, diagramming and representation. Int J AI Tools 13(4):961–980CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Rittel HWJ, Webber MM (1973) Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sci 4:155–169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Selvin A, Shum SB, Maarten S et al (2001) Compendium: making meetings into knowledge events. In: Knowledge technologies 2001, Austin, TXGoogle Scholar
  20. South M, Vreeswijk G, Fox J (2008) Dungine: a java dung reasoner. In Proceeding of the 2008 conference on computational models of argument: Proceedings of COMMA 2008, pp 360–368. IOS PressGoogle Scholar
  21. Toulmin SE (1958) The uses of argument. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  22. Verheij B (2005) Virtual arguments. TMC Asser Press, The HagueCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Walton D (2005) Argumentation methods for artificial intelligence in law. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  24. Walton D (2006) Fundamentals of critical argumentation. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  25. Wigmore JH (1908) A treatise on the system of evidence in trials at common law: including the statutes and judicial decisions of all jurisdictions of the United States. Little, Brown and Company, Boston, MAGoogle Scholar
  26. Witkin BE (1990) Summary of California law. Bancroft-Whitney Co, San FranciscoGoogle Scholar
  27. Wyner A, Bench-Capon T, Atkinson K (2007) Arguments, values and baseballs: Representation of Popov v. Hayashi. Legal knowledge and information systems. JURIX, pp 151–160Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Fraunhofer FOKUSBerlinGermany
  2. 2.University of WindsorWindsorCanada

Personalised recommendations