Switch to: References

Add citations

You must login to add citations.
  1. Eveline T. Feteris: Fundamentals of legal argumentation: Springer, 2017, 2nd edn, pp. 363.T. J. M. Bench-Capon - 2018 - Artificial Intelligence and Law 26 (3):307-314.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Before and after Dung: Argumentation in AI and Law.T. J. M. Bench-Capon - 2020 - Argument and Computation 11 (1-2):221-238.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  • 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.
    Doug Walton, who died in January 2020, was a prolific author whose work in informal logic and argumentation had a profound influence on Artificial Intelligence, including Artificial Intelligence and Law. He was also very interested in interdisciplinary work, and a frequent and generous collaborator. In this paper seven leading researchers in AI and Law, all past programme chairs of the International Conference on AI and Law who have worked with him, describe his influence on their work.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   5 citations  
  • Argumentation schemes in AI and Law.Katie Atkinson & Trevor Bench-Capon - 2021 - Argument and Computation 12 (3):417-434.
    In this paper we describe the impact that Walton’s conception of argumentation schemes had on AI and Law research. We will discuss developments in argumentation in AI and Law before Walton’s schemes became known in that community, and the issues that were current in that work. We will then show how Walton’s schemes provided a means of addressing all of those issues, and so supplied a unifying perspective from which to view argumentation in AI and Law.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   6 citations  
  • Profiles of Dialogue for Amphiboly.Douglas Walton - 2020 - Informal Logic 40 (1):3-45.
    Amphiboly has been widely recognized, starting from the time of Aristotle, as an informal fallacy arising from grammatical ambiguity. This paper applies the profiles of dialogue tool to the fallacy of amphiboly, providing a five-step evidence-based procedure whereby a syntactically ambiguous sentence uttered in a natural language text can be evaluated as committing a fallacy of amphiboly. A user applies the tool to a natural language text by comparing a descriptive graph, representing how the argumentation actually went, to a normative (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • Formalizing GDPR Provisions in Reified I/O Logic: The DAPRECO Knowledge Base.Livio Robaldo, Cesare Bartolini, Monica Palmirani, Arianna Rossi, Michele Martoni & Gabriele Lenzini - 2020 - Journal of Logic, Language and Information 29 (4):401-449.
    The DAPRECO knowledge base is the main outcome of the interdisciplinary project bearing the same name. It is a repository of rules written in LegalRuleML, an XML formalism designed to be a standard for representing the semantic and logical content of legal documents. The rules represent the provisions of the General Data Protection Regulation, the new Regulation that is significantly affecting the digital market in the European Union and beyond. The DAPRECO knowledge base builds upon the Privacy Ontology, which provides (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • Mood and force in defeasible arguments.Ryan Phillip Quandt & John Licato - 2021 - Argument and Computation 12 (3):303-328.
    Argumentation schemes bring artificial intelligence into day to day conversation. Interpreting the force of an utterance, be it an assertion, command, or question, remains a task for achieving this goal. But it is not an easy task. An interpretation of force depends on a speaker’s use of words for a hearer at the moment of utterance. Ascribing force relies on grammatical mood, though not in a straightforward or regular way. We face a dilemma: on one hand, deciding force requires an (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • On argument acceptability change towards legal interpretation dynamics.Martín O. Moguillansky & Luciano H. Tamargo - 2020 - Artificial Intelligence and Law 29 (3):311-350.
    We propose a formal theory built upon an abstract argumentation framework for handling argumentation dynamics. To that end, we analyze the acceptability dynamics of arguments through the proposal of two different kinds of sets of arguments which are somehow responsible for the acceptability/rejection of a given argument. We develop a study of the consequences of breaking the construction of such sets towards the acceptance of an analyzed argument. This brings about the proposal of a novel change operation which allows to (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • Pragmatic Maxims and Presumptions in Legal Interpretation.Fabrizio Macagno, Douglas Walton & Giovanni Sartor - 2018 - Law and Philosophy 37 (1):69-115.
    The fields of linguistic pragmatics and legal interpretation are deeply interrelated. The purpose of this paper is to show how pragmatics and the developments in argumentation theory can contribute to the debate on legal interpretation. The relation between the pragmatic maxims and the presumptions underlying the legal canons are brought to light, unveiling the principles that underlie the types of argument usually used to justify a construction. The Gricean maxims and the arguments of legal interpretation are regarded as presumptions subject (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   8 citations  
  • Argumentation schemes in AI: A literature review. Introduction to the special issue.Fabrizio Macagno - 2021 - Argument and Computation 12 (3):287-302.
    Argumentation schemes [1–3] are a relatively recent notion that continues an extremely ancient debate on one of the foundations of human reasoning, human comprehension, and obviously human argumentation, i.e., the topics. To understand the revolutionary nature of Walton’s work on this subject matter, it is necessary to place it in the debate that it continues and contributes to, namely a view of logic that is much broader than the formalistic perspective that has been adopted from the 20th century until nowadays. (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Populating legal ontologies using semantic role labeling.Llio Humphreys, Guido Boella, Leendert van der Torre, Livio Robaldo, Luigi Di Caro, Sepideh Ghanavati & Robert Muthuri - 2020 - Artificial Intelligence and Law 29 (2):171-211.
    This article seeks to address the problem of the ‘resource consumption bottleneck’ of creating legal semantic technologies manually. It describes a semantic role labeling based information extraction system to extract definitions and norms from legislation and represent them as structured norms in legal ontologies. The output is intended to help make laws more accessible, understandable, and searchable in a legal document management system.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • Research in progress: report on the ICAIL 2017 doctoral consortium.Maria Dymitruk, Réka Markovich, Rūta Liepiņa, Mirna El Ghosh, Robert van Doesburg, Guido Governatori & Bart Verheij - 2018 - Artificial Intelligence and Law 26 (1):49-97.
    This paper arose out of the 2017 international conference on AI and law doctoral consortium. There were five students who presented their Ph.D. work, and each of them has contributed a section to this paper. The paper offers a view of what topics are currently engaging students, and shows the diversity of their interests and influences.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  • Dialogue Types, Argumentation Schemes, and Mathematical Practice: Douglas Walton and Mathematics.Andrew Aberdein - 2021 - Journal of Applied Logics 8 (1):159-182.
    Douglas Walton’s multitudinous contributions to the study of argumentation seldom, if ever, directly engage with argumentation in mathematics. Nonetheless, several of the innovations with which he is most closely associated lend themselves to improving our understanding of mathematical arguments. I concentrate on two such innovations: dialogue types (§1) and argumentation schemes (§2). I argue that both devices are much more applicable to mathematical reasoning than may be commonly supposed.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations