HYPO’S legacy: introduction to the virtual special issue

Before and after Dung: Argumentation in AI and Law

“…Thinking about reasoning with legal cases was dominated by HYPO [102] and [7], and subsequent work deriving from it, including CABARET [112], CATO [4] and BankXX [103]. For an overview of HYPO and its successors see [20]. In these systems cases could be seen as collection of factors.…”

“…Projects were pursued independently and were not easy to relate to one another. Even projects with a common origin such as Aleven and Ashley's CATO and Skalak and Rissland's CABARET went in separate, quite different, directions, as described in [20]. This diversity manifested itself in a variety of approaches, each of which were individual to a particular project, in source material (cases or statutes or commentaries), and in the particular part of the process addressed (generation, conflict identification, explanation, etc).…”

“…As such they are Boolean: either present in, or absent from, a case. As discussed in[20], several of the systems use dimensions, which have magnitudes and range from an extreme pro-plaintiff point to an extreme pro-defendant point, rather than factors. For simplicity we will just use factors (which can be regarded as particular points or ranges on a dimension[101]).…”

Noise induced hearing loss: Building an application using the ANGELIC methodology

“…Section 6 provides a discussion of the current and future possibilities for development of the work and Section 7 concludes the paper. 15…”

“…In[23] the statements are three valued (true, false and undecided), but this has subsequently been generalised[22] to arbitrarily truth valued statements 27. For a full description of CATO, which remains central to discussions of reasoning with legal cases in AI and Law, see[15]. For a full discussion of how CATO was reconstructed using ANGELIC see[3].…”