Structuring Dialogue between the People and Their Representatives

  • Katie Greenwood
  • Trevor Bench-Capon
  • Peter McBurney
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 2739)


Conversations between citizens and their representatives may take a number of forms. In this paper, we consider one of these – letters between citizens and representatives – and explore the application of a well-known model of dialogue types to these. We provide a method to give these types a precise characterization in terms of the initial beliefs and desires of the participants, and then explore one type, persuasion dialogues. This work commences the formal modeling of citizen-representative interactions necessary for a fully electronic democracy.


Child Care Deliberative Democracy Argumentation Framework Provide Child Care Initial Belief 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Bench-Capon, T.J.M.: Agreeing to differ: Modelling persuasive dialogue between parties without a consensus about values. Informal Logic (2003) (in press)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bench-Capon, T.J.M.: Persuasion in practical argument using value-based argumentation frameworks. Journal of Logic and Computation (2003) (in press)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Gilbert, N.: The claimant advice systems. In: Bench-Capon, T.J.M. (ed.) Knowledge Based Systems and Legal Applications, pp. 115–128. Academic Press, London (1991)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Gilbert, N.: Support for members of the public. In: Bench-Capon, T.J.M. (ed.) Knowledge Based Systems and Legal Applications, pp. 183–198. Academic Press, London (1991)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Gordon, T.F., Richter, G.: Discourse support systems for deliberative democracy. In: Traunmüller, R., Lenk, K. (eds.) EGOV 2002. LNCS, vol. 2456, pp. 238–255. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Greenwood, K., Bench-Capon, T., McBurney, P.: Argument over Proposals for Action. Report ULCS-03-003, Department of Computer Science, University of Liverpool, UK (2003)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Greenwood, K., Bench-Capon, T., McBurney, P.: Towards an account of persuasion in law. In: Proc. 9th Intern. Conf. on AI and Law (ICAIL 2003). ACM Press, New York (2003) (to appear)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Luehrs, R., Malsch, T., Voss, K.: Internet, discourses, and democracy. In: Terano, T., Nishida, T., Namatame, A., Tsumoto, S., Ohsawa, Y., Washio, T. (eds.) JSAI-WS 2001. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 2253, pp. 67–74. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    McBurney, P., Parsons, S.: Intelligent systems to support deliberative democracy in environmental regulation. ICT Law 10(1), 33–43 (2001)MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    McBurney, P., Parsons, S.: Games that agents play: A formal framework for dialogues between autonomous agents. J. Logic, Language and Information 11(3), 315–334 (2002)zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Walton, D.N., Krabbe, E.C.W.: Commitment in Dialogue: Basic Concepts of Interpersonal Reasoning. SUNY Press, Albany (1995)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Katie Greenwood
    • 1
  • Trevor Bench-Capon
    • 1
  • Peter McBurney
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of LiverpoolLiverpoolUK

Personalised recommendations