Skip to main content
Springer Nature Link
Log in

A Carneades reconstruction of Popov v Hayashi

  • Published:
Artificial Intelligence and Law Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Carneades is an open source argument mapping application and a programming library for building argumentation support tools. In this paper, Carneades’ support for argument reconstruction, evaluation and visualization is illustrated by modeling most of the factual and legal arguments in Popov v Hayashi.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8

Similar content being viewed by others

Explore related subjects

Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.

Notes

  1. http://carneades.github.com.

  2. Weights do not play a role in the legal arguments modeled below, since the proof standard used to resolve legal issues is dialectical validity, where weights are irrelevant.

  3. Incidentally, this finding renders Judge McCarthy’s proposed rule about a qualified right to possession being sufficient to meet the ownership requirement of the conversion cause of action obiter dictum, not relevant for the decision of the case and thus not binding precedent. According to Black (1979), obiter dictum is “an observation or remark made by a judge when pronouncing an opinion on a case, concerning some rule, principal or application of law, or the solution of a question suggested by the case at bar, but not necessarily involved in the case or essential for its determination.”

  4. Fresno Air Service v Wood (1965) 232 Cal. App. 2d 801, 806.

  5. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company v San Francisco Bank. (1943) 58 Cal. App. 2d 528, 534.

  6. Pierson v Post, 3 Caines R. (N.Y. 1805).

  7. Young v Hutchinson, 6 Q.B. 606 (1844).

  8. The screen shots have been edited slightly to overcome the lack of color printing, by adding check marks and Xs to accepted and rejected statements, respectively.

  9. http://www.computing.dundee.ac.uk/staff/creed/araucaria.

  10. http://compendium.open.ac.uk/institute/index.htm.

  11. http://www.argunet.org/debates. See also (Betz 2009).

  12. In Germany, for example, see KnowledgeTools (http://www.knowledgetools.de), FallSoft (http://www.fallsoft.de/) and Normfall (http://www.normfall.de).

References

  • Atkinson K, Bench-Capon T, McBurney P (2004) Justifying practical reasoning. In Proceedings of the fourth international workshop on computational models of natural argument (CMNA), pp 87–90, Valencia, ECAI

  • Atkinson K, Bench-Capon T, McBurney P (2005) Arguing about cases as practical reasoning. In Proceedings of the 10th international conference on artificial intelligence and law, pp 35–44, Bologna

  • Beardsley MC (1950) Practical logic. Prentice Hall, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Bench-Capon T (2003) Persuasion in practical argument using value-based argumentation frameworks. J Logic Comput 13(3):429–448

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Betz G (2009) Evaluating dialectical structures. J Philos Logic 38(3):283–312

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Black HC (1979) Black’s law dictionary, 5th edn. West Publishing Co, St Paul, MN

  • Conklin J, Begeman M (1988) gIBIS: a hypertext tool for exploratory policy discussion. ACM Transact Office Inf Syst 6(4):303–331

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dung PM (1995) On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games. Artif Intell, 77(2):321–357. ISSN 0004-3702

    Google Scholar 

  • Freeman JB (1991) Dialectics and the macrostructure of arguments: a theory of argument structure. Walter de Gruyter, Berlin

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Gordon TF (2007) Visualizing Carneades argument graphs. Law Probab Risk 6(1–4):109–117

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gordon TF, Karacapilidis N (1997) The Zeno argumentation framework. In Proceedings of the sixth international conference on artificial intelligence and law, pp 10–18, ACM Press, Melbourne

  • Gordon TF, Walton D (2006) Pierson vs. post revisted—a reconstruction using the Carneades argumentation framework. In: Dunne PE, Bench-Capon T (eds). Proceedings of the first international conference on computational models of argument (COMMA 06), IOS Press, Liverpool

  • Gordon TF, Walton D (2009) Legal reasoning with argumentation schemes. In Hafner CD (ed). 12th international conference on artificial intelligence and law (ICAIL 2009), ACM Press, New York

  • Gordon TF, Prakken H, Walton D (2007) The Carneades model of argument and burden of proof. Artif Intell 171(10–11):875–896

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Karacapilidis N, Papadias D (2001) Computer supported argumentation and collaborative decision making: the HERMES system. Inf Syst 26(4):259–277

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Mochales R, Leven A (2009) Creating an argumentation corpus: do theories apply to real arguments? A case study on the legal argumentation of the echr. In ICAIL ’09: Proceedings of the 12th international conference on artificial intelligence and law, pp 21–30, ACM, New York, NY

  • Reed CA, Rowe GWA (2004) Araucaria: software for argument analysis, diagramming and representation. Int J AI Tools 13(4):961–980

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rittel HWJ, Webber MM (1973) Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sci 4:155–169

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Selvin A, Shum SB, Maarten S et al (2001) Compendium: making meetings into knowledge events. In: Knowledge technologies 2001, Austin, TX

  • South M, Vreeswijk G, Fox J (2008) Dungine: a java dung reasoner. In Proceeding of the 2008 conference on computational models of argument: Proceedings of COMMA 2008, pp 360–368. IOS Press

  • Toulmin SE (1958) The uses of argument. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Verheij B (2005) Virtual arguments. TMC Asser Press, The Hague

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Walton D (2005) Argumentation methods for artificial intelligence in law. Springer, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Walton D (2006) Fundamentals of critical argumentation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Wigmore JH (1908) A treatise on the system of evidence in trials at common law: including the statutes and judicial decisions of all jurisdictions of the United States. Little, Brown and Company, Boston, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Witkin BE (1990) Summary of California law. Bancroft-Whitney Co, San Francisco

    Google Scholar 

  • Wyner A, Bench-Capon T, Atkinson K (2007) Arguments, values and baseballs: Representation of Popov v. Hayashi. Legal knowledge and information systems. JURIX, pp 151–160

Download references

Acknowledgments

We would like to acknowledge Stefan Ballnat and Matthias Grabmair for their work on implementing the Carneades inference engine and graphical user interface.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Fraunhofer FOKUS, Berlin, Germany

    Thomas F. Gordon

  2. University of Windsor, Windsor, ON, Canada

    Douglas Walton

Authors
  1. Thomas F. Gordon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Douglas Walton
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Thomas F. Gordon.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Gordon, T.F., Walton, D. A Carneades reconstruction of Popov v Hayashi. Artif Intell Law 20, 37–56 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10506-012-9120-0

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10506-012-9120-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation