# An Argumentation-Based Legal Reasoning Approach for DL-Ontology

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2209.03070 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2209.03070/

## Key facts

- Cited by 1 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 1 of its 27 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 7 Sep 2022.

## Builds on (most cited first, 1 of 1)

- [A General Account of Argumentation with Preferences](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1804.06763/) (2018)

## Built on by (most cited first, 1 of 1)

- [Explaining Non-monotonic Normative Reasoning using Argumentation Theory with Deontic Logic](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2409.11780/) (2024)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Ontology is a popular method for knowledge representation in different domains, including the legal domain, and description logics (DL) is commonly used as its description language. To handle reasoning based on inconsistent DL-based legal ontologies, the current paper presents a structured argumentation framework particularly for reasoning in legal contexts on the basis of ASPIC+, and translates the legal ontology into formulas and rules of an argumentation theory. With a particular focus on the design of autonomous vehicles from the perspective of legal AI, we show that using this combined theory of formal argumentation and DL-based legal ontology, acceptable assertions can be obtained based on inconsistent ontologies, and the traditional reasoning tasks of DL ontologies can also be accomplished. In addition, a formal definition of explanations for the result of reasoning is presented.