Abstract
Online dispute resolution is becoming the main method when dealing with a conflict in e-commerce. A family of defeasible reasoning patterns is used to provide a useful link between dispute resolution agents and legal doctrines. The proposed argumentation framework combines defeasible logic with temporal reasoning and argumentation with level of certainty. The evaluation of arguments depends on the stage of the dispute: commencement, discovery, pre-trial, arbitration, according to current practice in law. By applying the open world assumption to the rules, the argumentative semantics of defeasible logic is enriched with three types of negated rules which offer symmetrical means of argumentation for both disputants. A corollary of this extension consists in defining a specialized type of undercutting defeater. The theory is illustrated with the help of a concrete business-to-client case in a prototype implemented system.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
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, UK, pp. 13–28 (2003)
Katsh, E., Rifkin, J.: Online Dispute Resolution: Resolving Conflicts in Cyberspace. John Wiley, Chichester (2001)
Lodder, A., Thiessen, E.: The role of artificial intelligence in online dispute resolution. In: Workshop on Online Dispute Resolution at the International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, Edinburgh, UK (2003)
Walton, D., Godden, D.: Persuasion dialogues in online dispute resolution. Artificial Intelligence and Law 13, 273–295 (2006)
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, 221–242 (2003)
Governatori, G.: Representing business contracts in RuleML. Journal of Cooperative Information Systems 14 (2005)
Pollock, J.L.: Defeasible reasoning with variable degrees of justification. Artificial Intelligence 133, 233–282 (2001)
Pollock, J.L.: How to reason defeasibly. Artificial Intelligence 57, 1–42 (1992)
Prakken, H.: A study of accrual of arguments, with applications to evidential reasoning. In: 10th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, New York, NY, USA, pp. 85–94 (2005)
Parsons, S., Wooldridge, M., Amgoud, L.: Properties and complexity of some formal inter-agent dialogues. Journal of Logic and Computation 13, 347–376 (2003)
Johnston, B., Governatori, G.: An algorithm for the induction of defeasible logic theories from databases. In: Australasian Database Conference, pp. 75–83 (2003)
Bonnet, V., Boudaoud, K., Gagnebin, M., Harms, J., Schultz, T.: Online dispute resolution systems as web services. ICFAI Journal of Alternative Dispute 3, 57–74 (2004)
Bellucci, E., Lodder, A.R., Zeleznikow, J.: Integrating artificial intelligence, argumentation and game theory to develop an online dispute resolution environment. In: 16th International Conference on Tools with Artificial Intelligence, pp. 749–754. IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos (2004)
Lodder, A.: DiaLaw: On Legal Justification and Dialogical Models of Argumentation. Kluwer, Dordrecht (1999)
Gordon, T., Walton, D.: The Carneades argumentation framework: Using presumptions and exceptions to model critical questions. In: 1st International Conference on Computational Models of Argument, pp. 208–219. IOS Press, Amsterdam (2006)
Letia, I.A., Groza, A.: Running contracts with defeasible commitment. In: Ali, M., Dapoigny, R. (eds.) IEA/AIE 2006. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 4031, pp. 91–100. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)
Maher, M.J.: Propositional defeasible logic has linear complexity. Theory and Practice of Logic Programming 1, 691–711 (2001)
Udupi, Y.B., Singh, M.P.: Contract enactment in virtual organizations: A commitment-based approach. In: 21st National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 722–727. AAAI, Stanford (2006)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2008 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this paper
Cite this paper
Letia, I.A., Groza, A. (2008). Structured Argumentation in a Mediator for Online Dispute Resolution. In: Baldoni, M., Son, T.C., van Riemsdijk, M.B., Winikoff, M. (eds) Declarative Agent Languages and Technologies V. DALT 2007. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 4897. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-77564-5_12
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-77564-5_12
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-540-77563-8
Online ISBN: 978-3-540-77564-5
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)