Bibliography of Popov v Hayashi in AI and Law

Transcription

1 Bibliography of Popov v Hayashi in AI and Law Trevor Bench-Capon Department of Computer Sciences University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK tbc@csc.liv.ac.uk November 6, 2014 Abstract Bibliography for Popov v Hayashi in AI and Law and selected AI and Law papers on the wild animals cases. 1 Popov v Hayashi Ashley, Kevin D. Toward Modeling Analogical, Teleological and Hypothetical Legal Reasoning in a Case Microworld. Modelling Legal Cases (2009): 95. [1] Ashley, Kevin D. The case-based reasoning approach: ontologies for analogical legal argument. Approaches to Legal Ontologies. Springer Netherlands, [2] Atkinson, Katie, and Trevor Bench-Capon. Argumentation and standards of proof. Proceedings of the 11th international conference on Artificial intelligence and law. ACM, [5] Atkinson, Katie, Modelling Legal Cases. Springer, [3] Atkinson, Katie. Introduction to special issue on modelling Popov v. Hayashi. Artificial Intelligence and Law 20.1 (2012): [4] Bench-Capon, Trevor JM. Representing Popov v Hayashi with dimensions and factors. Artificial Intelligence and Law 20.1 (2012): [13] 1

2 Egly, Uwe, Sarah Alice Gaggl, and Stefan Woltran. Aspartix: Implementing argumentation frameworks using answer-set programming. Logic Programming. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, [19] Gordon, Thomas F., and Douglas Walton. A Carneades reconstruction of Popov v Hayashi. Artificial Intelligence and Law 20.1 (2012): [22] Prakken, Henry. Reconstructing Popov v. Hayashi in a framework for argumentation with structured arguments and Dungean semantics. Artificial Intelligence and law 20.1 (2012): [24]. Walton, Douglas. Similarity, precedent and argument from analogy. Artificial Intelligence and Law 18.3 (2010): [29] Walton, Douglas. Baseballs and arguments from fairness. Artificial Intelligence and Law: [28] Wyner, Adam, Trevor Bench-Capon, and Katie Atkinson. Arguments, values and baseballs: Representation of Popov v. Hayashi. JURIX. Vol [31] Wyner, Adam. An OWL ontology for legal cases with an instantiation of Popov v. Hayashi. Proceedings of the ICAIL 2009 workshop on modeling legal cases. IDT Series. Huygens Editorial, Barcelona [30] Wyner, Adam, and Rinke Hoekstra. A legal case OWL ontology with an instantiation of Popov v. Hayashi. Artificial Intelligence and Law 20.1 (2012): [32] 2 Selected Wild Animals in AI and Law Atkinson, Katie, Trevor Bench-Capon, and Peter McBurney. Arguing about cases as practical reasoning. Proceedings of the 10th international conference on Artificial intelligence and law. ACM, [6] Bench-Capon, Trevor, and Giovanni Sartor. A quantitative approach to theory coherence. Legal Knowledge and Information Systems. JURIX (2001): [10] Bench-Capon, Trevor JM, and Rissland, Edwina L. Back to the future: dimensions revisited. Proceedings of JURIX [14] Bench-Capon, Trevor J. M. The missing link revisited: The role of teleology in representing legal argument. Artificial Intelligence and Law (2002): [15] Bench-Capon, Trevor, and Giovanni Sartor. A model of legal reasoning with cases incorporating theories and values. Artificial Intelligence

3 (2003): [11] Bench-Capon, Trevor JM. Try to see it my way: Modelling persuasion in legal discourse. Artificial Intelligence and Law 11.4 (2003): [12] Bench-Capon, Trevor, Katie Atkinson, and Alison Chorley. Persuasion and value in legal argument. Journal of Logic and Computation 15.6 (2005): [7] Bench-Capon, Trevor, and Sanjay Modgil. Case law in extended argumentation frameworks. Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law. ACM, [8] Bench-Capon, Trevor, et al. Argument schemes for reasoning with legal cases using values. Proceedings of the Fourteenth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law. ACM, [9] Berman, Donald H., and Carole D. Hafner. Representing teleological structure in case-based legal reasoning: the missing link. Proceedings of the 4th international conference on Artificial intelligence and law. ACM, [16] Chorley, Alison, and Trevor Bench-Capon. Agatha: Automation of the construction of theories in case law domains. Proceedings of Jurix [17] Chorley, Alison, and Trevor Bench-Capon. AGATHA: Using heuristic search to automate the construction of case law theories. Artificial Intelligence and Law 13.1 (2005): [18] Gaggl, Sarah Alice. Solving argumentation frameworks using answer set programming. Technical University, Vienna, [20] Gordon, Thomas F., and Douglas Walton. Pierson vs. Post Revisited. Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications 144 (2006): 208. [21] Prakken, Henry. An exercise in formalising teleological case-based reasoning. Artificial Intelligence and Law (2002): [23] Sartor, Giovanni. Teleological arguments and theory-based dialectics. Artificial Intelligence and Law (2002): [25] Sileno, Giovanni, Alexander Boer, and Tom van Engers. Intentions and motives in legal reasoning and legal narratives. [26] Suzuki, Yoshitaka. Dialogue game tree with nondeterministic additive consolidation. Computational Logic in Multi-Agent Systems. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, [27] 3

4 References [1] K. D. Ashley. Toward modeling analogical, teleological and hypothetical legal reasoning in a case microworld. Modelling Legal Cases, page 95, [2] K. D. Ashley. The case-based reasoning approach: ontologies for analogical legal argument. In Approaches to Legal Ontologies, pages Springer, [3] K. Atkinson. Modelling Legal Cases. Springer, [4] K. Atkinson. Introduction to special issue on modelling popov v. hayashi. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 20(1):1 14, [5] K. Atkinson and T. Bench-Capon. Argumentation and standards of proof. In Proceedings of the 11th international conference on Artificial intelligence and law, pages ACM, [6] K. Atkinson, T. Bench-Capon, and P. McBurney. Arguing about cases as practical reasoning. In Proceedings of the 10th international conference on Artificial intelligence and law, pages ACM, [7] T. Bench-Capon, K. Atkinson, and A. Chorley. Persuasion and value in legal argument. Journal of Logic and Computation, 15(6): , [8] T. Bench-Capon and S. Modgil. Case law in extended argumentation frameworks. In Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, pages ACM, [9] T. Bench-Capon, H. Prakken, A. Wyner, and K. Atkinson. Argument schemes for reasoning with legal cases using values. In Proceedings of the Fourteenth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, pages ACM, [10] T. Bench-Capon and G. Sartor. A quantitative approach to theory coherence. Legal Knowledge and Information Systems. JURIX, pages 53 62,

5 [11] T. Bench-Capon and G. Sartor. A model of legal reasoning with cases incorporating theories and values. Artificial Intelligence, 150(1):97 143, [12] T. J. Bench-Capon. Try to see it my way: Modelling persuasion in legal discourse. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 11(4): , [13] T. J. Bench-Capon. Representing popov v hayashi with dimensions and factors. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 20(1):15 35, [14] T. J. Bench-Capon and E. L. Rissland. Back to the future: dimensions revisited. In Proceedings of JURIX IOS Press, [15] T. J. M. Bench-Capon. The missing link revisited: The role of teleology in representing legal argument. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 10(1-3):79 94, [16] D. H. Berman and C. D. Hafner. Representing teleological structure in case-based legal reasoning: the missing link. In Proceedings of the 4th international conference on Artificial intelligence and law, pages ACM, [17] A. Chorley and T. Bench-Capon. Agatha: Automation of the construction of theories in case law domains. In Proceedings of Jurix, pages 89 98, [18] A. Chorley and T. Bench-Capon. Agatha: Using heuristic search to automate the construction of case law theories. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 13(1):9 51, [19] U. Egly, S. A. Gaggl, and S. Woltran. Aspartix: Implementing argumentation frameworks using answer-set programming. In Logic Programming, pages Springer, [20] S. A. Gaggl. Solving argumentation frameworks using answer set programming. Technical University, Vienna, [21] T. F. Gordon and D. Walton. Pierson vs. post revisited. Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications, 144:208, [22] T. F. Gordon and D. Walton. A carneades reconstruction of popov v hayashi. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 20(1):37 56,

6 [23] H. Prakken. An exercise in formalising teleological case-based reasoning. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 10(1-3): , [24] H. Prakken. Reconstructing popov v. hayashi in a framework for argumentation with structured arguments and dungean semantics. Artificial Intelligence and law, 20(1):57 82, [25] G. Sartor. Teleological arguments and theory-based dialectics. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 10(1-3):95 112, [26] G. Sileno, A. Boer, and T. van Engers. Intentions and motives in legal reasoning and legal narratives. [27] Y. Suzuki. Dialogue game tree with nondeterministic additive consolidation. In Computational Logic in Multi-Agent Systems, pages Springer, [28] D. Walton. Baseballs and arguments from fairness. Artificial Intelligence and Law, pages [29] D. Walton. Similarity, precedent and argument from analogy. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 18(3): , [30] A. Wyner. An owl ontology for legal cases with an instantiation of popov v. hayashi. In Proceedings of the ICAIL 2009 workshop on modeling legal cases. IDT Series. Huygens Editorial, Barcelona, pages 21 40, [31] A. Wyner, T. Bench-Capon, and K. Atkinson. Arguments, values and baseballs: Representation of popov v. hayashi. In JURIX, volume 165, pages , [32] A. Wyner and R. Hoekstra. A legal case owl ontology with an instantiation of popov v. hayashi. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 20(1):83 107,