A dialogical model of case law dynamics

We describe a set of dialogue moves which give a procedure to model the development of case law over a sequence of cases

An explainable approach to deducing outcomes in european court of human rights cases using ADFs

In this paper we present an argumentation-based approach to representing and reasoning about a domain of law that has previously been addressed through a machine learning approach. The domain concerns cases that all fall within the remit of a specific Article within the European Court of Human Rights. We perform a comparison between the approaches, based on two criteria: ability of the model to accurately replicate the decision that was made in the real life legal cases within the particular domain, and the quality of the explanation provided by the models. Our initial results show that the system based on the argumentation approach improves on the machine learning results in terms of accuracy, and can explain its outcomes in terms of the issue on which the case turned, and the factors that were crucial in arriving at the conclusion

Explaining legal decisions using IRAC

We suggest that the Issue, Rule, Application, Conclusion (IRAC) method can be used to produce a natural explanation of legal case outcomes. We show how a current methodology for representing knowledge of legal cases can be used to provide such explanations

Argument schemes for two-phase democratic deliberation

A formal two-phase model of democratic policy deliberation is presented, in which in the first phase sufficient and necessary criteria for proposals to be accepted are determined (the ‘acceptable’ criteria) and in the second phase proposals are made and evaluated in light of the acceptable criteria resulting from the first phase. Such a separation gives the discussion a clear structure and prevents time and resources from being wasted on evaluating arguments for proposals based on unacceptable criteria. Argument schemes for both phases are defined and formalised in a logical framework for structured argumentation. The process of deliberation is abstracted from and it is assumed that both deliberation phases result in a set of arguments and attack and defeat relations between them. The acceptability status of criteria and proposals within the resulting argumentation framework is then evaluated using preferred semantics. For cases where preferences are required to choose between proposals, inference rules for deriving preferences between sets from an ordering of their elements are given.MediamaticsElectrical Engineering, Mathematics and Computer Scienc

Summa Contra Ontologiam

The final publication is available at Springer via http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/11896548_37Revised Selected Papers of EDBT 2006 Workshops PhD, DataX, IIDB, IIHA, ICSNW, QLQP, PIM, PaRMA, and Reactivity on the Web, Munich, Germany, March 26-31, 2006This paper is a critical analysis of the concept of ontology thus as it is used in contemporary computing science. It identifies three main problems with such a concept, two of which are intrinsic to it and one of which is extrinsic, so to speak, being related to the use that of ontology is made in applications. The first problem with ontology is that the only accepted definition of its main artifact is teleological rather than structural as it would be proper in computing science. The second problem is that claiming that ontology is in any way a semantic discipline requires such a limited and outdated notion of semantic to be to all practical purposes useless. The third and final problem is that the limitations and misconceptions of ontology might make it a limiting factor, rather than a help, for many of the applications for which it is sought. The article concludes that a profound reconsideration of the relation between computers and semantics might be overdue