Abstract
Online dispute resolution is becoming the main method when dealing with a conflict in e-commerce. Our framework exploits the argumentation semantics of defeasible logic, shown to be a suitable choice for legal reasoning. We introduce the rough set theory within defeasible logic for handling the gradual information revealed in a legal dispute. The rough sets are being used in the generation of defeasible theories from available cases, but also in the inference rules required for the argumentation process. The framework can cover both aspects of the law: case based reasoning and legal syllogism.
Part of this work was supported by the grant 27702-990 from the National Research Council of the Romanian Ministry for Education and Research.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Tyler, M.C., Bretherton, D.: Seventy-six and counting: An analysis of ODR sites. In: Workshop on Online Dispute Resolution at the International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, Edinburgh, pp. 13–28 (2003)
Walton, D., Godden, D.: Persuasion dialogues in online dispute resolution. Artificial Intelligence and Law 13, 273–295 (2006)
Johnston, B., Governatori, G.: An algorithm for the induction of defeasible logic theories from databases. In: 14th Australasian Database Conference, Darlinghurst, Australia, pp. 75–83 (2003)
Rule, C., Friedberg, L.: The appropriate role of dispute resolution in building trust online. Artificial Intelligence and Law 13, 193–205 (2006)
Hage, J.: Law and defeasibility. Artificial Intelligence and Law 11, 221–243 (2003)
Pawlak, Z.: A primer on rough sets: a new approach to drawing conclusion from data. Cardozo Law Review 22, 1407–1415 (2002)
Li, J., Cercone, N.: Introducing a rule importance measure. In: Peters, J.F., Skowron, A. (eds.) Transactions on Rough Sets V. LNCS, vol. 4100, pp. 167–189. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)
Szczuka, M.: Techniques for managing rule-based concept approximation. In: International Workshop on Soft Computing at Intelligent Agent Technology, Compiegne, France, pp. 31–35 (2005)
Pollock, J.L.: Defeasible reasoning with variable degrees of justification. Artificial Intelligence 133, 233–282 (2001)
Doherty, P., Lukaszewicz, W., Szalas, A.: Communication between agents with heterogeneous perceptual capabilities. Information Fusion 8, 56–69 (2007)
Rebolledo, M.: Rough intervals – enhancing intervals for qualitative modeling of technical systems. Artificial Intelligence 170, 667–685 (2006)
Parsons, S., Wooldridge, M., Amgoud, L.: Properties and complexity of some formal inter-agent dialogues. Journal of Logic and Computation 13, 347–376 (2003)
Governatori, G., Stranieri, A.: Towards the application of association rules for defeasible rules discovery. In: Verheij, B., Lodder, A., Loui, R.P., Muntjerwerff, A.J. (eds.) Legal Knowledge and Information Systems, pp. 63–75. IOS Press, Amsterdam (2001)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2007 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this paper
Cite this paper
Letia, I.A., Groza, A. (2007). Exploiting Rough Argumentation in an Online Dispute Resolution Mediator. In: Kryszkiewicz, M., Peters, J.F., Rybinski, H., Skowron, A. (eds) Rough Sets and Intelligent Systems Paradigms. RSEISP 2007. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 4585. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-73451-2_73
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-73451-2_73
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-540-73450-5
Online ISBN: 978-3-540-73451-2
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)