Using Toulmin Argumentation to develop an Online Dispute Resolution Environment

Our goal is to model reasoning in discretionary legal domains. To do so, we use Knowledge Discovery from Database Techniques. However there are obstacles to this approach, including difficulties in generating explanations once conclusions have been inferred, difficulties associated with the collection of sufficient data from past cases and difficulties associated with integrating two vastly different paradigms. Toulmin’s treatise on the uses of argument can be gainfully employed to construct legal decision support systems in discretionary domains. We show how we can use Toulmin’s approach to build such systems with examples taken from the domains of eligibility for legal aid, evaluation of eyewitness evidence, family law, refugee law and sentencing. We then show how Toulmin Argument Structures can be developed to construct an Online Dispute Resolution environment that allows for determining BATNAs, exchanging opinions and providing advice about tradeoffs

Managing negotiation knowledge with the goal of developing negotiation decision support systems

While Information Technology has been used to support negotiation there is little research in the domain of knowledge management in legal negotiation. In this paper we discuss the nature of negotiation knowledge and how such knowledge can be utilized to construct negotiation decision support systems. We conduct an in-depth examination of the notion of a BATNA (Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement) and given a useful BATNA, how we can use issue and preference elicitation and compensation and trade-off strategies to provide negotiation decision support. We conclude by indicating how current negotiation support systems can be extended to support Online Dispute Resolution and haw we can extend the Family_Winner system in light of the need to more adequately manage negotiation knowledge.<br /

‘I just saw this on Facebook, I need it now’: Exploring Small Business use of Facebook

This paper reports on a study exploring social media adoption and use by twelve small businesses. Results indicate that Facebook is the dominant platform used and it can provide small businesses with a virtually cost free and easy way to reach customers. Businesses reported immediate results from using Facebook; customers arrived in store after seeing Facebook posts. Participants felt there were minimal risks involved and none had experienced negative feedback or inappropriate posts. Most felt that using Facebook increased their competitive advantage due to their enhanced online profile. Despite some effort to engage customers, business to consumer transfer of information is the primary function of the Facebook pages studied. Page owners report limited training for and analysis of their Facebook activities. This indicates a need for further research in the small business context, focused on approaches to boosting customer interaction, to realize the full potential of Facebook engagement

Eagles Soar in Sunday Morning Match

Eagles Soar in Sunday Morning Match Women\u27s Tennis gets back on track with a clean sweep of FAM

Knowledge Discovery for Decision Support in Law

The Split Up project applies knowledge discovery techniques (KDD) to legal domains. Theories of jurisprudence underpin a classification scheme that is used to identify tasks suited to KDD. Theoretical perspectives also guide the selection of cases appropriate for a KDD exercise. Further, jurisprudence underpins strategies for dealing with contradictory data. Argumentation theory is instrumental for representing domain expertise so that the KDD process can be constrained. Specifically, a variant of the argumentation structure proposed by Toulmin is used to decompose tasks into independent sub-tasks in the data transformation phase. This enables a complex KDD exercise to be decomposed into numerous simpler exercises that each require less data and have fewer instances of missing values. The use of the structure also facilitates the development of information systems that integrate multiple reasoning mechanisms such as first order logic, neural networks or fuzzy inferences and provides a convenient structure for the generation of explanations. The viability of this approach was tested with the development of a system that predicts property split outcomes in cases litigated in the Family Court of Australia. The system has been evaluated using a mix of strategies that derive from a framework proposed by Reich

Decision support in interest based negotiation support systems: the AssetDivider system

Negotiation Support Systems (NSS) model the process of negotiation from basic template support to more sophisticated decision making support. The authors attempt to develop systems capable of decision support by suggesting possible solutions for the given dispute. Current Negotiation Support Systems primarily rely upon mathematical optimisation techniques and often ignore heuristics and other methods derived from practice. This chapter discusses the technology of several negotiation support systems in family law developed in their laboratory based on data collected and methods derived from practise. The chapter explores similarities and differences between systems the authors have created and demonstrates their latest development, AssetDivider.<br /

Negotiating About Charges and Pleas: Balancing Interests and Justice

There is a worldwide movement towards alternatives to judicial decision-making for legal disputes. In the domain of criminal sentencing, in Western countries more than 95 % of cases are guilty pleas, with many being decided by negotiations over charges and pleas, rather than a decision being made after a judge or jury has heard all relevant evidence in a trial. Because decisions are being made, and people incarcerated on the basis of negotiations, it is important that such negotiations be just and fair. In this paper we discuss issues of fairness in plea-bargaining and how we can develop systems to support the process of plea and charge negotiation. We discuss how we are using Toulmin’s theory of argumentation and Lodder and Zeleznikow’s model of online dispute resolution to develop just plea bargaining systems. A specific investigation of the process of charge mentions is discussed