Have a personal or library account? Click to login
Conflicts in legal knowledge base Cover

Conflicts in legal knowledge base

Foundations of Computing and Decision Sciences
Volume 37 (2012): Issue 2 (June 2012)
By: Tomasz Zurek  
Open Access
|Oct 2012

References

  1. [1] Agricultural tax act. http://prawo-nieruchomosci.krn.pl/Ustawa-o-podatkurolnym- 1 2 36.html (2010)
    Search in Google Scholar
  2. [2] Bench-Capon, T., Sartor, G.: Theory based explanation of case law domains:. In: ICAIL ’01: Proceedings of the 4th international conference on Artificial intelligence and law, pp. 12-21. ACM, New York, NY, USA (2001)10.1145/383535.383537
    Search in Google Scholar
  3. [3] Borsari, G., Cevenini, C., Contissa, G., Morini, S., Sartor, G., Still, P.: Hare: an italian application of softlaw’s statute expert technology. In: ICAIL ’05: Proceedings of the 10th international conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, pp. 225-229. ACM, New York, NY, USA (2005)10.1145/1165485.1165521
    Search in Google Scholar
  4. [4] Gordon, T.: Some problems with prolog as a knowledge representation language for legal expert system. International Review of Law, Computers and Technology 3, 52-67 (1987)10.1080/13600869.1987.9966253
    Search in Google Scholar
  5. [5] Gordon, T.: Constructing arguments with a computational model of an argumentation scheme for legal rules: Interpreting legal rules as reasoning policies. In: Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, pp. 117-121. ACM, New York, NY, USA (2007)10.1145/1276318.1276340
    Search in Google Scholar
  6. [6] Hage, J.: Law and defeasibility. Artificial Intelligence and Law 11, 221-243 (2003)10.1023/B:ARTI.0000046011.13621.08
    Search in Google Scholar
  7. [7] Hage, J.: Studies in Legal Logic. Springer (2005)
    Search in Google Scholar
  8. [8] Horty, J.: Argument construction and reinstatement in logics for defeasible reasoning. Artificial Intelligence and Law 9, 1-28 (2001)10.1023/A:1011288805074
    Search in Google Scholar
  9. [9] Horty, J.F.: Nonmonotonic techniques in the formalisation of commonsense normative reasoning. Proceedings Workshop on Nonmonotonic Reasoning pp. 74-84 (1993)
    Search in Google Scholar
  10. [10] Kowalski, R., Toni, F.: Abstract argumentation. Articial Intelligence and Law 4, 275-296 (1996)10.1007/BF00118494
    Search in Google Scholar
  11. [11] MacDermott, D.: Non-monotonic ii- non-monotonic modal theories. Journal of ACM 29(1), 33-57 (1982)10.1145/322290.322293
    Search in Google Scholar
  12. [12] Mccarthy: Circumscription a form of non-monotonic reasoning. Artificial Intelligence 13, 27-39 (1980)10.1016/0004-3702(80)90011-9
    Search in Google Scholar
  13. [13] Nute, D.: Defeasible logic. In: INAP’01: Proceedings of the Applications of prolog 14th international conference on Web knowledge management and decision support, pp. 151-169. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg (2003)10.1007/3-540-36524-9_13
    Search in Google Scholar
  14. [14] Oskamp, A.: Model for knowledge and legal expert systems. Artificial Intelligence and Law 1, 245-274 (1992)10.1007/BF00186723
    Search in Google Scholar
  15. [15] Prakken, H.: Two approaches to the formalisation of defeasible deontic reasoning. Studia Logica pp. 73-90 (1996)10.1007/BF00370670
    Search in Google Scholar
  16. [16] Prakken, H.: Coherence and flexibility in dialogue games for argumentation. Journal of logic and computation 15, 1009-1040 (2005)10.1093/logcom/exi046
    Search in Google Scholar
  17. [17] Prakken, H.: Formalising ordinary legal disputes: a case study. Artificial Intelligence and Law 16, 333-359 (2008)10.1007/s10506-008-9069-1
    Search in Google Scholar
  18. [18] Prakken, H., Sartor, G.: A system for defeasible argumentation, with defeasible priorities, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 1085, pp. 510-524. Springer Berlin / Heidelberg (1996)10.1007/3-540-61313-7_97
    Search in Google Scholar
  19. [19] Prakken, H., Sartor, G.: Argument-based extended logic programming with defeasible priorities. Journal of Applied Non-classical Logics 7(1) (1997)10.1080/11663081.1997.10510900
    Search in Google Scholar
  20. [20] Prakken, H., Sartor, G.: The three faces of defeasibility in the law. Ratio Juris 17(1), 118-139 (2004)10.1111/j.0952-1917.2004.00259.x
    Search in Google Scholar
  21. [21] Prakken, H., Sartor, G.: Formalising arguments about the burden of persuasion. In: ICAIL ’07: Proceedings of the 11th international conference on Artificial intelligence and law, pp. 97-106. ACM, New York, NY, USA (2007)10.1145/1276318.1276338
    Search in Google Scholar
  22. [22] Reiter, R.: A logic for default reasoning. Artificial Intelligence 13, 81-132 (1980)10.1016/0004-3702(80)90014-4
    Search in Google Scholar
  23. [23] Sartor, G.: The structure of norm conditions and nonmonotonic reasoning in law. In: ICAIL ’91: Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Artificial intelligence and law, pp. 155-164 (1991)10.1145/112646.112665
    Search in Google Scholar
  24. [24] Sartor, G.: Normative conflicts in legal reasoning. Artificial Intelligence and Law 1, 209-235 (1992)10.1007/BF00114921
    Search in Google Scholar
  25. [25] Sartor, G.: A simple computational model for nonmonotonic and adversarial legal reasoning. In: ICAIL ’93: Proceedings of the 4th international conference on Artificial intelligence and law, pp. 192-201 (1993)10.1145/158976.159001
    Search in Google Scholar
  26. [26] Sergot M, J., Sadri, F., Kowalski R, A., Kriwaczek, F., Hammond, P., Cory H, T.: The british nationality act as a logic program. Communications of the ACM 29(5), 370-386 (1986). DOI http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/5689.592010.1145/5689.5920
    Search in Google Scholar
  27. [27] Sherman, D.: A prolog model of the income tax act of canada. In: ICAIL ’87: Proceedings of the 1st international conference on Artificial intelligence and law, pp. 127-136 (1987)10.1145/41735.41750
    Search in Google Scholar
  28. [28] Van Der Torre L W, N., Yao-Huata, N.: Defeasible Deontic Logic, chap. The Many Faces Of Defeasibility In Defeasible Deontic Logic, pp. 79-122. Kluwer (1997)10.1007/978-94-015-8851-5_5
    Search in Google Scholar
  29. [29] Walton, D.: Fundamentals of Critical Argumentation. Cambridge University Press (2006)10.1017/CBO9780511807039
    Search in Google Scholar
  30. [30] Zurek, T., Kruk, E.: Supporting of legal reasoning for cases which are not strictly regulated by law. In: ICAIL ’09: Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, pp. 220-221 (2009)10.1145/1568234.1568263
    Search in Google Scholar
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/v10209-011-0006-9 | Journal eISSN: 2300-3405 | Journal ISSN: 0867-6356
Journal RSS Feed
Language: English
Page range: 129 - 145
Published on: Oct 1, 2012
Published by: Poznan University of Technology
In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services
Publication frequency: 4 issues per year
Keywords:
Legal expert system,
Knowledge representation,
Conflicting rules.
Related subjects:
Computer sciences,
Artificial intelligence,
Software development

© 2012 Tomasz Zurek, published by Poznan University of Technology
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons License.

Previous articleVolume 37 (2012): Issue 2 (June 2012)