In them, debate was heard on four partisan argument.

The research pursued in the early 1980s by Rissland, Ashley, Branting, and Skalak explored the rich vein of case-based reasoning in the context of legal argument. Some of these seminal projects were presented in a special 1991 pair of issues of the International Journal of Man-Machine Studies (e.g., Ashley 1991; Branting, 1991; Rissland & Skalak, 1991). Ideas from these research projects lay the foundation of what is now termed interpretive CBR, that is, how to interpret new cases in light of past interpretations. This work has also influenced the community that develops formal models of argumentation and defeasible reasoning, and these models have in turn contributed more formal models to CBR (e.g., Bench-Capon & Sartor, 2003). The AI and law community continues to provide a rich tributary of ideas and techniques about CBR and for integrating it with other reasoning modalities in CBR hybrids, such as rule-based reasoning, heuristic search, and information retrieval.

As an indispensable supplement to reasoning cases, or mopcs) to outline an argument regarding deductively with legal rules, attorneys and judges reason how to decide the cfs based on its significant similarities to analogically with precedent cases; rule predicates are and differences from mopes. A claim lattice projects the case knowledge seldom exists to legal questions. Legal experts make base (CKB) onto the problem situation to create a neighborhood competing arguments instead, pitting conflicting interpretations of cases surrounding the problem situation in which of cases and facts against each other. We will present a Hypo, a computer program that performs case-based detailed example of a claim lattice actually generated by reasoning in the legal domain, helps attorneys analyze and Hypo to analyze a real legal case. To perform this task, indexing and retrieving relevant cases are not enough.

We present and analyze several examples of CEG taken from protocols. Based upon such examples, we present a model of the CEG process. We then briefly describe a computer implementation of the CEG model. This material is based upon wirk supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. IST-8017343.

Also to appear in Proceedings NIE--LRDC Conference on Thinking and Learning Skills, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

In mathematics, examples can be said to be as important to understanding as the traditionally exalted definitions, theorems, and proofs (Rissland 1978). In fact, some mathematical areas developed in response to troublesome counter-examples like modern real function theory which has been called'the branch of mathematics which deals with counter-examples" (Munroe 1953). In the law, examples -- that is, legal cases -- are the basis from which the law derives (at least in common law systems like those of the United States and England): the law is made through court decisions by consideration of specific problems in specific cases. The cases lead to rule-like decisions which are then refined (or perhaps refuted, i.e., overturned) in subsequent cases. In linguistics, for instance in the study of syntax, linguistic rules are derived from study of examples of actual language and are then subjected to testing on more examples. Some examples are taken from the infinite store of run of the mill sentences available to every natural speaker; others, like certain difficult garden path sentences, are fabricated and used as counter-examples are in mathematics.

Where the accountants have fallen down, however, is in their reluctance and sometimes inability to make intensive studies of different equipment and to specify their requirements for equipment. As one authority in the field of electronic data processing has pointed out, "Accountants, unlike engineers, take the equipment as given without bothering to specify their own particular needs." But after all things are taken into consideration, it is of primary importance that the personnel who are handling the details of the investigation have a good knowledge of the particular application to be studied. Executives in many companies have been dissatisfied with the help received from outsiders who are expert programmers and who know a lot about equipment, but who are unfamiliar with business systems. In some companies executives have found that their own personnel, who know the firm's particular data processing system, after three or four months of experience in which to grasp the logics of the computer and the intricacies of programming, are much more valuable than such outside experts.

For example, if the game is chess, the piece may be: king, rook, pawn... My aim was to realize a program playing several For some games, all men are of the same games.

A general game-playing program must know the rules of the particular playing game. These rules are: (1) an algorithm indicating the winning state; (2) an algorithm enumerating legal moves. A move gives a set of changes from the present situation. There are two means of giving these rules: (1) We can write a subroutine which recognizes if we have won and another which enumerates legal moves. Such a subroutine is a black box giving to the calling program the answer: 'you win' or'you do not win', or the list of legal moves. But it cannot know what is in that subroutine.

I] presented a systematic account of the facts of thought and of the methods to express them. But if we do not restrict the domain, there are too many things to be considered. Brunot accurately studied various ways to express surprise, prices, anteriority in the future, a question... But concepts used only in specific domains do not appear in his book. That is why I chose a technical domain -- annotations of chess games -- and I tried to fmd what was said in that domain.