Structured Argumentation in a Mediator for Online Dispute Resolution

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.

[1]  John Fulcher,et al.  Advances in Applied Artificial Intelligence , 2006 .

[2]  Guido Governatori,et al.  Representing business contracts in RuleML , 2005, Int. J. Cooperative Inf. Syst..

[3]  Michael Wooldridge,et al.  Properties and Complexity of Some Formal Inter-agent Dialogues , 2003, J. Log. Comput..

[4]  Michael J. Maher.  Under consideration for publication in Theory and Practice of Logic Programming 1 Propositional Defeasible Logic has Linear Complexity , 2004 .

[5]  Henry Prakken,et al.  A study of accrual of arguments, with applications to evidential reasoning , 2005, ICAIL '05.

[6]  Guido Governatori,et al.  An algorithm for the induction of defeasible logic theories from databases , 2003, ADC.

[7]  Ioan Alfred Letia,et al.  Running Contracts with Defeasible Commitment , 2006, IEA/AIE.

[8]  Jaap Hage,et al.  Law and Defeasibility , 2003, Artificial Intelligence and Law.

[9]  Douglas Walton,et al.  Persuasion Dialogue in Online Dispute Resolution , 2005, Artificial Intelligence and Law.

[10]  John L. Pollock,et al.  How to Reason Defeasibly , 1992, Artif. Intell..

[11]  Colin Rule,et al.  The appropriate role of dispute resolution in building trust online , 2005, Artificial Intelligence and Law.

[12]  Jurgen Harms,et al.  Online Dispute Resolution Systems as Web Services , 2006 .

[13]  E. Katsh,et al.  Online Dispute Resolution: Resolving Conflicts in Cyberspace , 2001 .

[14]  Guido Governatori,et al.  Induction of defeasible logic theories in the legal domain , 2003, ICAIL.

[15]  John Zeleznikow,et al.  Integrating artificial intelligence, argumentation and game theory to develop an online dispute resolution environment , 2004, 16th IEEE International Conference on Tools with Artificial Intelligence.

[16]  A. Lodder.  DiaLaw: On Legal Justification and Dialogical Models of Argumentation , 1999 .

[17]  Munindar P. Singh,et al.  Contract Enactment in Virtual Organizations: A Commitment-Based Approach , 2006, AAAI.

[18]  Arno R. Lodder,et al.  The Role of Artificial Intelligence in Online Dispute Resolution , 2004 .

[19]  John L. Pollock,et al.  Defeasible reasoning with variable degrees of justification , 2001, Artif. Intell..

[20]  Douglas Walton,et al.  The Carneades Argumentation Framework - Using Presumptions and Exceptions to Model Critical Questions , 2006, COMMA.