Adam Zachary Wyner

Learn More
In this paper, we model a recent legal case as presented in a court of first instance using argument schemes and an argumentation framework, providing a formal analysis of the case and how the outcome was determined. The paper contributes to the body of literature that formally analyses legal cases in terms of arguments and argument schemes. It is novel in(More)
In AI approaches to argumentation, different senses of argument are often conflated. We propose a three-level distinction between arguments, cases, and debates. This allows for modularising issues within levels and identifying systematic relations between levels. Arguments, comprised of rules, facts, and a claim, are the basic units; they instantiate(More)
Argumentation Frameworks (AFs) provide a fruitful basis for exploring issues of defeasible reasoning. Their power largely derives from the abstract nature of the arguments within the framework, where arguments are atomic nodes in an undifferentiated relation of attack. This abstraction conceals different conceptions of argument, and concrete instantiations(More)
Much work using argumentation frameworks treats arguments as entirely abstract, related by a uniform attack relation which always succeeds unless the attacker can itself be defeated. However, this does not seem adequate for legal argumentation. Some proposals have suggested regulating attack relations using preferences or values on arguments and which(More)
We consider the logical representation of obligations on sta-tive expressions such as The yard must be clean in the context of legal contract formation, execution, and monitoring (cf. Wyner (2003)). In a contract, the expression may understood as an obligation to maintain a property. We use a Deontic Action Logic to represent obligations over the course of(More)