Meta-programming in logic programming
An assumption-based framework for non-monotonic reasoning
Proceedings of the second international workshop on Logic programming and non-monotonic reasoning
Handbook of logic in artificial intelligence and logic programming (vol. 3)
Prolog programming in depth
Artificial intelligence: a new synthesis
Artificial intelligence: a new synthesis
ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR)
A Flexible Framework for Defeasible Logics
Proceedings of the Seventeenth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Twelfth Conference on Innovative Applications of Artificial Intelligence
Argumentation Semantics for Defeasible Logic
Journal of Logic and Computation
Formalising arguments about the burden of persuasion
Proceedings of the 11th international conference on Artificial intelligence and law
Legal rules and argumentation in a metalogic framework
Proceedings of the 2007 conference on Legal Knowledge and Information Systems: JURIX 2007: The Twentieth Annual Conference
A Common Framework for Board Games and Argumentation Games
Proceedings of the 2009 conference on Information Modelling and Knowledge Bases XX
Ambiguity propagating defeasible logic and the well-founded semantics
JELIA'06 Proceedings of the 10th European conference on Logics in Artificial Intelligence
| Hi-index | 0.00 |
Human argumentation in general and legal dispute in particular can be seen as highly dynamic and non-monotonic to its nature. To us this suggests that logical analysis of legal argumentation needs to be conducted in a dynamical and flexible setting in which the interaction is influenced by the parties' previous arguments. To express such approximations of legal reasoning as computational formalizations of argument, applications require dealing with knowledge representations, non-monotonic logics and a game-model able to capture the interaction as a debate between two or more disputing parties. In this paper we present some intuitions regarding the features of a full implementation and accompanying software for defeasible adversarial legal argumentation.