Modular Logic Argumentation in Arg-tuProlog

A modular extension of Arg-tuProlog, a light-weight argumentation tool, is here presented and discussed, highlighting how it enables reasoning with rules and interpretations of multiple legal systems. Its effectiveness is demonstrated with examples from different national private international law (PIL) laws, running in Arg-tuProlog. PIL addresses overlaps and conflicts between legal systems by distributing cases between the authorities of such systems (jurisdiction) and establishing what rules these authorities have to apply to each case (choice of law)

More on presumptions and burdens of proof

This paper extends our previous logical analysis of presumptions and burden of proof by studying the force of a presumption once counterevidence has been offered. In the jurisprudential literature different accounts of this issue have been given: some have argued that a presumption is nullified by counterarguments while others have maintained that this gives presumptions a force that is too slight. We argue that these differences largely are not a matter of logic but of legal policy, and we show how the various accounts can be logically formalised

Formalising arguments about the burden of persuasion.

This paper presents an argument-based logic for reasoning about allocations of the burden of persuasion. The logic extends the system of Prakken (2001), which in turn modified the system of Prakken & Sartor (1996) with the possibility to distribute the burden of proof over both sides in an argument game. First the (2001) system is put in the context of a distinction of three types of proof burdens and it is argued that the proof burdens of that system are in fact burdens of persuasion. Then the (2001) system is modified to allow for defeasible reasoning about allocations of such burdens within the logic. The usefulness of the resulting system is illustrated with applications to real legal cases

Temporalised Normative Positions in Defeasible Logic

We propose a computationally oriented non-monotonic multi-modal logic arising from the combination of temporalised agency and temporalised normative positions. We argue about the defeasible nature of these notions and then we show how to represent and reason with them in the setting of Defeasible Logic

Contested Cases of Statutory Interpretation

This paper proposes an argumentation based procedure for legal interpretation, by reinterpreting the traditional canons of textual interpretation in terms of argumentation schemes,which are then classified, formalized, and represented through argument visualization and evaluation tools. The problem of statutory interpretation is framed as one of weighing contested interpretations as pro and con arguments. The paper builds an interpretation procedure by formulating a set of argumentation schemes that can be used to comparatively evaluate the types of arguments used in cases of contested statutory interpretation in law. A simplified version of the Carneades Argumentation System is applied in a case analysis showing how the procedure works. A logical model for statutory interpretation is finally presented , covering protanto and all things considered interpretive conclusions

The future of manufacturing: A Delphi-based scenario analysis on Industry 4.0

Industry 4.0 is expected to impart profound changes to the configuration of manufacturing companies with regards to what their value proposition will be and how their production network, supplier base and customer interfaces will develop. The literature on the topic is still fragmented; the features of the emerging paradigm appear to be a contested territory among different academic disciplines. This study assumes a value chain perspective to analyze the evolutionary trajectories of manufacturing companies. We developed a Delphi-based scenario analysis involving 76 experts from academia and practice. The results highlight the most common expectations as well as controversial issues in terms of emerging business models, size, barriers to entry, vertical integration, rent distribution, and geographical location of activities. Eight scenarios provide a concise outlook on the range of possible futures. These scenarios are based on four main drivers which stem from the experts\u2019 comments: demand characteristics, transparency of data among value chain participants, maturity of additive manufacturing and advanced robotics, and penetration of smart products. Researchers can derive from our study a series of hypotheses and opportunities for future research on Industry 4.0. Managers and policymakers can leverage the scenarios in long-term strategic planning

Influencing Choices by Changing Beliefs: A Logical Theory of Influence, Persuasion, and Deception

Wemodelpersuasion,viewedasadeliberateactionthroughwhichan agent (persuader) changes the beliefs of another agent’s (persuadee). This notion of persuasion paves the way to express the idea of persuasive influence, namely inducing a change in the choices of the persuadee by changing her beliefs. It allows in turns to express different aspects of deception. To this end, we propose a logical framework that enables expressing actions and capabilities of agents, their mental states (desires, knowledge and beliefs), a variety of agency operators as well as the connection between mental states and choices. Those notions, once combined, enable us to capture, the notion of influence, persuasion and deception, as well as their relation

Using supply chain databases in academic research: A methodological critique

This article outlines the main methodological implications of using Bloomberg SPLC, FactSet Supply Chain Relationships, and Mergent Supply Chain for academic purposes. These databases provide secondary data on buyer–supplier relationships that have been publicly disclosed. Despite the growing use of these databases in supply chain management (SCM) research, several potential validity and reliability issues have not been systematically and openly addressed. This article thus expounds on challenges of using these databases that are caused by (1) inconsistency between data, SCM constructs, and research questions (data fit); (2) errors caused by the databases' classifications and assumptions (data accuracy); and (3) limitations due to the inclusion of only publicly disclosed buyer–supplier relationships involving specific focal firms (data representativeness). The analysis is based on a review of previous studies using Bloomberg SPLC, FactSet Supply Chain Relationships, and Mergent Supply Chain, publicly available materials, interviews with information service providers, and the direct experience of the authors. Some solutions draw upon established methodological literature on the use of secondary data. The article concludes by providing summary guidelines and urging SCM researchers toward greater methodological transparency when using these databases