Zeno Revisited: Representation of Persuasive Argument

Authors:
Katie Atkinson;Trevor Bench-Capon
Affiliations:
Department of Computer Science, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK;Department of Computer Science, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK
Venue:
Proceedings of the 2006 conference on Legal Knowledge and Information Systems: JURIX 2006: The Nineteenth Annual Conference
Year:
2006

Citing 7
Cited 1

Representing teleological structure in case-based legal reasoning: the missing link

ICAIL '93 Proceedings of the 4th international conference on Artificial intelligence and law
On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games

Artificial Intelligence
Burden of proof in legal argumentation

ICAIL '95 Proceedings of the 5th international conference on Artificial intelligence and law
The Zeno argumentation framework

Proceedings of the 6th international conference on Artificial intelligence and law
Inferring from Inconsistency in Preference-Based Argumentation Frameworks

Journal of Automated Reasoning
PARMENIDES: facilitating deliberation in democracies

Artificial Intelligence and Law - AI & law in eGovernment and eDemocracy part I
Determining preferences through argumentation

AI*IA'05 Proceedings of the 9th conference on Advances in Artificial Intelligence

Argumentation and standards of proof

Proceedings of the 11th international conference on Artificial intelligence and law

Quantified Score

Hi-index	0.00

Visualization

Abstract

In this paper we explore and contrast different forms of dispute representation from the present and past literature. In particular, we examine the Zeno Framework, which represents disputes as dialectical trees, and compare this to other abstract systems for argument representation. We discuss the merits of each method and show how the example argument first represented in Zeno can be transformed into a more concise representation whilst retaining its desirable features.