Conflicts in legal knowledge base

[1] Agricultural tax act. http://prawo-nieruchomosci.krn.pl/Ustawa-o-podatkurolnym- 1 2 36.html (2010)Search in Google Scholar

[2] Bench-Capon, T., Sartor, G.: Theory based explanation of case law domains:. In: ICAIL ’01: Proceedings of the 4th international conference on Artificial intelligence and law, pp. 12-21. ACM, New York, NY, USA (2001)10.1145/383535.383537Search in Google Scholar

[3] Borsari, G., Cevenini, C., Contissa, G., Morini, S., Sartor, G., Still, P.: Hare: an italian application of softlaw’s statute expert technology. In: ICAIL ’05: Proceedings of the 10th international conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, pp. 225-229. ACM, New York, NY, USA (2005)10.1145/1165485.1165521Search in Google Scholar

[4] Gordon, T.: Some problems with prolog as a knowledge representation language for legal expert system. International Review of Law, Computers and Technology 3, 52-67 (1987)10.1080/13600869.1987.9966253Search in Google Scholar

[5] Gordon, T.: Constructing arguments with a computational model of an argumentation scheme for legal rules: Interpreting legal rules as reasoning policies. In: Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, pp. 117-121. ACM, New York, NY, USA (2007)10.1145/1276318.1276340Search in Google Scholar

[6] Hage, J.: Law and defeasibility. Artificial Intelligence and Law 11, 221-243 (2003)10.1023/B:ARTI.0000046011.13621.08Search in Google Scholar

[7] Hage, J.: Studies in Legal Logic. Springer (2005)Search in Google Scholar

[8] Horty, J.: Argument construction and reinstatement in logics for defeasible reasoning. Artificial Intelligence and Law 9, 1-28 (2001)10.1023/A:1011288805074Search in Google Scholar

[9] Horty, J.F.: Nonmonotonic techniques in the formalisation of commonsense normative reasoning. Proceedings Workshop on Nonmonotonic Reasoning pp. 74-84 (1993)Search in Google Scholar

[10] Kowalski, R., Toni, F.: Abstract argumentation. Articial Intelligence and Law 4, 275-296 (1996)10.1007/BF00118494Search in Google Scholar

[11] MacDermott, D.: Non-monotonic ii- non-monotonic modal theories. Journal of ACM 29(1), 33-57 (1982)10.1145/322290.322293Search in Google Scholar

[12] Mccarthy: Circumscription a form of non-monotonic reasoning. Artificial Intelligence 13, 27-39 (1980)10.1016/0004-3702(80)90011-9Search in Google Scholar

[13] Nute, D.: Defeasible logic. In: INAP’01: Proceedings of the Applications of prolog 14th international conference on Web knowledge management and decision support, pp. 151-169. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg (2003)10.1007/3-540-36524-9_13Search in Google Scholar

[14] Oskamp, A.: Model for knowledge and legal expert systems. Artificial Intelligence and Law 1, 245-274 (1992)10.1007/BF00186723Search in Google Scholar

[15] Prakken, H.: Two approaches to the formalisation of defeasible deontic reasoning. Studia Logica pp. 73-90 (1996)10.1007/BF00370670Search in Google Scholar

[16] Prakken, H.: Coherence and flexibility in dialogue games for argumentation. Journal of logic and computation 15, 1009-1040 (2005)10.1093/logcom/exi046Search in Google Scholar

[17] Prakken, H.: Formalising ordinary legal disputes: a case study. Artificial Intelligence and Law 16, 333-359 (2008)10.1007/s10506-008-9069-1Search in Google Scholar

[18] Prakken, H., Sartor, G.: A system for defeasible argumentation, with defeasible priorities, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 1085, pp. 510-524. Springer Berlin / Heidelberg (1996)10.1007/3-540-61313-7_97Search in Google Scholar

[19] Prakken, H., Sartor, G.: Argument-based extended logic programming with defeasible priorities. Journal of Applied Non-classical Logics 7(1) (1997)10.1080/11663081.1997.10510900Search in Google Scholar

[20] Prakken, H., Sartor, G.: The three faces of defeasibility in the law. Ratio Juris 17(1), 118-139 (2004)10.1111/j.0952-1917.2004.00259.xSearch in Google Scholar

[21] Prakken, H., Sartor, G.: Formalising arguments about the burden of persuasion. In: ICAIL ’07: Proceedings of the 11th international conference on Artificial intelligence and law, pp. 97-106. ACM, New York, NY, USA (2007)10.1145/1276318.1276338Search in Google Scholar

[22] Reiter, R.: A logic for default reasoning. Artificial Intelligence 13, 81-132 (1980)10.1016/0004-3702(80)90014-4Search in Google Scholar

[23] Sartor, G.: The structure of norm conditions and nonmonotonic reasoning in law. In: ICAIL ’91: Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Artificial intelligence and law, pp. 155-164 (1991)10.1145/112646.112665Search in Google Scholar

[24] Sartor, G.: Normative conflicts in legal reasoning. Artificial Intelligence and Law 1, 209-235 (1992)10.1007/BF00114921Search in Google Scholar

[25] Sartor, G.: A simple computational model for nonmonotonic and adversarial legal reasoning. In: ICAIL ’93: Proceedings of the 4th international conference on Artificial intelligence and law, pp. 192-201 (1993)10.1145/158976.159001Search in Google Scholar

[26] Sergot M, J., Sadri, F., Kowalski R, A., Kriwaczek, F., Hammond, P., Cory H, T.: The british nationality act as a logic program. Communications of the ACM 29(5), 370-386 (1986). DOI http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/5689.592010.1145/5689.5920Search in Google Scholar

[27] Sherman, D.: A prolog model of the income tax act of canada. In: ICAIL ’87: Proceedings of the 1st international conference on Artificial intelligence and law, pp. 127-136 (1987)10.1145/41735.41750Search in Google Scholar

[28] Van Der Torre L W, N., Yao-Huata, N.: Defeasible Deontic Logic, chap. The Many Faces Of Defeasibility In Defeasible Deontic Logic, pp. 79-122. Kluwer (1997)10.1007/978-94-015-8851-5_5Search in Google Scholar

[29] Walton, D.: Fundamentals of Critical Argumentation. Cambridge University Press (2006)10.1017/CBO9780511807039Search in Google Scholar

[30] Zurek, T., Kruk, E.: Supporting of legal reasoning for cases which are not strictly regulated by law. In: ICAIL ’09: Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, pp. 220-221 (2009)10.1145/1568234.1568263Search in Google Scholar