J. Zeleznikow and A. Stranieri. The split-up system: Integrating neural networks and rule-based reasoning in the legal domain. In Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, pages 185--194, 1995. 13  Home/Search   Document Not in Database   Summary   Related Articles   Check

....relationships. The theory of argumentation addresses texts intended to persuade, establish, or prove. For example, Toulmin [Tou58] analyzed argumentative texts in terms of the concepts of warrant, ground, conclusion, backing, and qualification. This model has been widely applied to the analysis [Mar89, ZS95] and creation [BCS95] of legal documents. Argument structure, like other forms of illocutionary goal structure but unlike rhetorical structure, does not directly address the surface form of texts. This line of research is particularly relevant to the analysis of the illocutionary structure of ....

J. Zeleznikow and A. Stranieri. The split-up system: Integrating neural networks and rule-based reasoning in the legal domain. In Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, pages 185--194, 1995. 13

.... structure is the basis of models of legal discourse derived from Toulmin s model of argument structure, which ana lyzed argumentative texts in terms of the concepts of warrant, ground, conclusion, backing, and qualification [Tou58] Toulmin s model has been used for explanation generation [ZS95], document drafting in Plaid [BCS95] and analysis [FF96] Goal trees were also the basis of the document models of Jeda [PRK89] and LawClerk [Bra93] Performative documents, such as orders, judgments, wills, and contracts, and argumentative documents, such as briefs, generally consist in part of ....

J. Zeleznikow and A. Stranieri. The Split-Up system: Integrating neural networks and rule-based reasoning in the legal domain. In Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, pages 185--194, 1995.

....goals. The theory of argumentation addresses texts intended to persuade, establish, or prove. For example, Toulmin [Tou58] analyzed argumentative texts in terms of the concepts of warrant, ground, conclusion, backing, and qualification. This model has been widely applied to the analysis [Mar89, ZS95] and creation [BCS95] of legal documents. Argument structure, like other forms of illocutionary goal structure but unlike rhetorical structure, does not directly address the surface form of texts. This line of research is particularly relevant to the analysis of the illocutionary structure of ....

J. Zeleznikow and A. Stranieri. The split-up system: Integrating neural networks and rule-based reasoning in the legal domain. In Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, pages 185-- 194, 1995.

....that are intended to persuade, justify, establish, or prove. An influential model of argument structure proposed by Toulmin (1958) analyzed argumentative texts in terms of the concepts of warrant, ground, conclusion, backing, and qualification. This model has been used for explanation generation (Zeleznikow Stranieri 1995) and for document drafting in PLAID (Bench Capon Staniford 1995) PLAID produces a document by generating an argument structure whose nodes were tagged according to their role in the argument (claim, rebuttal, support, qualification, etc. This structure is then pruned to exclude premises that ....

J. Zeleznikow and A. Stranieri, The Split-Up System: Integrating Neural Networks and Rule-Based Reasoning in the Legal Domain' (1995) Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law (ACM Press) pp. 185-194.

....The theory of argumentation addresses texts intended to persuade, establish, or prove. For example, Toulmin [1958] analyzed argumentative texts in terms of the concepts of warrant, ground, conclusion, backing, and qualification. This model has been widely applied to the analysis [Marshall,1989; Zeleznikow et al. 1995] and creation [Bench Capon et al. 1995] of legal documents. Argument structure, like other forms of illocutionary goal structure but unlike rhetorical structure, does not directly address the surface form of texts. This line of research is particularly relevant to the analysis of the ....

J. Zeleznikow and A. Stranieri. The split-up system: Integrating neural networks and rulebased reasoning in the legal domain. In Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, pages 185--194, 1995.

....[Gri75, Sea69] The theory of argumentation addresses texts intended to persuade, establish, or prove. For example, Toulmin [Tou58] analyzed argumentative texts in terms of the concepts of warrant, ground, conclusion, backing, and qualification. This model has been widely applied to the analysis [Mar89, ZS95] and creation [BCS95] of legal documents. Argument structure, like other forms of illocutionary goal structure but unlike rhetorical structure, does not directly address the surface form of texts. This line of research is particularly relevant to the analysis of the illocutionary structure of ....

J. Zeleznikow and A. Stranieri. The split-up system: Integrating neural networks and rule-based reasoning in the legal domain. In Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, pages 185--194, 1995.

....The document drafting system developed by [Daskalopulu and Sergot 1995] extends on first generation approaches by introducing an extensive representation of the domain. All second generation systems aim to support one restricted aspect of a users tasks. For example, the rule neural hybrid of [Zeleznikow and Stranieri 1995] makes a prediction in family law. Lawyers, judges, para legal decision makers, mediators and litigants are all end users that find the development of an accurate prediction of a court outcome useful. However, in practice, a lawyer, for instance makes a prediction but also drafts documents and ....

....is also making an argument for (or against) refugee status for the applicant. An argument is represented using a frame that is based on, but not identical to, the structure proposed by [Toulmin 1958] This frame has been used in earlier studies in modelling family law knowledge in Australia by [Zeleznikow and Stranieri 1995] and is illustrated in Figure 1. Data elements in Figure 1 are the one or more elements such as Persecution due to political opinion that comprise the data component of the argument. Each data element has possible data element values. For example, the data element Persecution due to political ....

Zeleznikow, J. and Stranieri, A. 1995. The Split Up system: Integrating neural networks and rule based reasoning in the legal domain. Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence & Law. ICAIL'95. ACM Press. New York. pp185-194.

Online articles have much greater impact   More about CiteSeer.IST   Add search form to your site   Submit documents   Feedback  

CiteSeer.IST - Copyright Penn State and NEC