Annals of Computer Science and Information Systems, Volume 15

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.15439/2018F79

Citation: Proceedings of the 2018 Federated Conference on Computer Science and Information Systems, M. Ganzha, L. Maciaszek, M. Paprzycki (eds). ACSIS, Vol. 15, pages 155–158 (2018)

Full text

Abstract. The paper discusses the problem of formal modeling of the interpretation of statutory legal norms. The authors propose a comprehensive framework that allows the representation of the interpretation process. The authors' proposal is illustrated by a real-life example.

References

1. S. Modgil and H. Prakken, “The aspic+ framework for structured argumentation: A tutorial,” Argument and Computation, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 31–62, 2014.
2. M. Araszkiewicz and T. Zurek, “Interpreting agents,” in Legal Knowledge and Information Systems - JURIX 2016: The Twenty-Nineth Annual Conference, Sophia-Antipolis, France, 2016. http://dx.doi.org/10.3233/978-1-61499-726-9-13 pp. 13–22.
3. B. van Gijzel and H. Prakken, “Relating Carneades with abstract argumentation via the ASPIC + framework for structured argumentation,” Argument & Computation, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 21–47, Mar. 2012. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19462166.2012.661766
4. H. Prakken, “An abstract framework for argumentation with structured arguments,” Argument and Computation, vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 93–124, 2011.
5. F. Macagno, D. Walton, and G. Sartor, “Argumentation schemes for statutory interpretation,” in Argumentation. International Conference on Alternative Methods o Argumentation in Law., M. Araszkiewicz, M. Myska, T. Smejkalova, J. Savelka, and Skop M., Eds., Brno, 2012, pp. 61–76.
6. G. Sartor, D. Walton, F. Macagno, and A. Rotolo, “Argumentation schemes for statutory interpretation: A logical analysis,” in Legal Knowledge and Information Systems - JURIX 2014: The Twenty-Seventh Annual Conference, Jagiellonian University, Krakow, Poland, 10-12 December 2014, 2014, pp. 11–20.
7. D. Walton, G. Sartor, and F. Macagno, “An argumentation framework for contested cases of statutory interpretation,” Artificial Intelligence and Law, vol. 24, no. 1, pp. 51–91, 2016. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10506-016-9179-0