The Argument Interchange Format
While significant progress has been made in understanding the theoretical properties of different argumentation logics and in specifying argumentation dialogues, there remain major barriers to the development and practical deployment of argumentation systems. One of these barriers is the lack of a shared, agreed notation or “interchange format” for argumentation and arguments. In the last years a number of different argument mark-up languages have been proposed in the context of tools developed for argument visualisation and construction (see  for a review). Thus, for example, the Assurance and Safety Case Environment (ASCE)1 is a graphical and narrative authoring tool for developing and managing assurance cases, safety cases and other complex project documentation.
KeywordsDescription Logic Simple Argument Argument Structure Argumentation Scheme Dialogue Game
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
The authors are grateful to Steve Willmott, Peter McBurney, and AgentLink III for initiating and organising the Technical Forum “Towards a Standard Agent-to-Agent Argumentation Interchange Format,” and to all those who contributed to the initial AIF specification that it produced.
- 2.D. Brickley and R. V. Guha. RDF Vocabulary Description Language 1.0: RDF Schema. W3C Recommendation REC-rdf-schema-20040210, World Wide Web Consortium (W3C), February 2004.Google Scholar
- 3.S. Buckingham Shum. Cohere: Towards Web 2.0 argumentation. In P. Besnard, S. Doutre, and A. Hunter, editors, Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Computational Models of Argument (COMMA), pages 97–108. IOS Press, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2008.Google Scholar
- 5.S. Buckingham Shum, V. Uren, G. Li, B. Sereno, and C. Mancini. Modelling naturalistic argumentation in research literatures: Representation and interaction design issues. International Journal of Intelligent Systems, Special Issue on Computational Modelling of Naturalistic Argumentation, 22(1):17–47, 2007.Google Scholar
- 8.L. Emmet and G. Cleland. Graphical notations, narratives and persuasion: a pliant systems approach to hypertext tool design. In HYPERTEXT 2002, Proceedings of the 13th ACM Conference on Hypertext and Hypermedia, June 11-15, 2002, University of Maryland, College Park, MD, USA, pages 55–64, New York, USA, 2002. ACM Press.Google Scholar
- 10.P. A. Kirschner, S. J. B. Schum, and C. S. Carr, editors. Visualizing Argumentation: Software Tools for Collaborative and Educational Sense-Making. Springer Verlag, London, 2003.Google Scholar
- 11.P.-A. Matt, F. Toni, T. Stournaras, and D. Dimitrelos. Argumentation-based agents for eprocurement. In AAMAS ’08, pages 71–74, 2008.Google Scholar
- 12.S. Modgil and J. McGinnis. Towards characterising argumentation based dialogue in the argument interchange format. In I. Rahwan and P. Moraitis, editors, Proceedings of the 4th International Workshop on Argumentation in Multi-Agent Systems (ArgMAS), volume 5384 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Springer Verlag, 2008. to appear.Google Scholar
- 13.M. F. Moens, E. Boiy, R. M. Palau, and C. Reed. Automatic detection of arguments in legal texts. In Proceedings of the International Conference on AI & Law (ICAIL-2007), 2007.Google Scholar
- 14.I. Rahwan. Mass argumentation and the Semantic Web. Journal of Web Semantics, 6(1):29–37, 2008.Google Scholar
- 15.I. Rahwan and B. Banihashemi. Arguments in OWL: A progress report. In P. Besnard, S. Doutre, and A. Hunter, editors, Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Computational Models of Argument (COMMA), pages 297–310, Amsterdam, Nethrelands, 2008. IOS Press.Google Scholar
- 19.C. Reed, S. Wells, J. Devereux, and G. Rowe. AIF+: Dialogue in the Argument Interchange Format. In P. Besnard, S. Doutre, and A. Hunter, editors, Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Computational Models of Argument (COMMA), pages 311–323. IOS Press, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2008.Google Scholar
- 20.M. South, G. Vreeswijk, and J. Fox. Dungine: A Java Dung reasoner. In P. Besnard, S. Doutre, and A. Hunter, editors, Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Computational Models of Argument (COMMA), pages 360–368, Amsterdam, Nethrelands, 2008. IOS Press.Google Scholar
- 22.D. Walton. Argumentation Schemes for Presumptive Reasoning. Erlbaum, Mahwah NJ, 1996.Google Scholar
- 23.D. Walton. Legal Argumentation and Evidence. Penn State Press, University Park, PA, 2002.Google Scholar
- 24.T. Yuan, J. Schulze, J. D. C., and Reed. Towards an arguing agents competition: Building on Argumento. In Working Notes of the 8th Workshop on Computational Models of Natural Argument (CMNA-2008), 2008.Google Scholar