Advertisement

The Argument Interchange Format

  • Iyad Rahwan
  • Chris Reed
Chapter

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 [10] 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.

Keywords

Description Logic Simple Argument Argument Structure Argumentation Scheme Dialogue Game 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

Acknowledgments

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.

References

  1. 1.
    F. Baader, D. Calvanese, D. McGuinness, D. Nardi, and P. Patel-Schneider, editors. The Description Logic Handbook. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 2003.MATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 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. 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
  4. 4.
    S. Buckingham Shum, E. Motta, and J. Domingue. ScholOnto: An ontology-based digital library server for research documents and discourse. International Journal of Digital Libraries, 3(3):237–248, 2000.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 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
  6. 6.
    C. I. Chesñevar, J. McGinnis, S. Modgil, I. Rahwan, C. Reed, G. Simari, M. South, G. Vreeswijk, and S. Willmott. Towards an argument interchange format. The Knowledge Engineering Review, 21(4):293–316, 2007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    P. M. Dung. On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games. Artificial Intelligence, 77(2):321–358, 1995.MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  8. 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
  9. 9.
    T. F. Gordon, H. Prakken, and D. Walton. The Carneades model of argument and burden of proof. Artificial Intelligence, 171(10–15):875–896, 2007.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  10. 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. 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. 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. 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. 14.
    I. Rahwan. Mass argumentation and the Semantic Web. Journal of Web Semantics, 6(1):29–37, 2008.Google Scholar
  15. 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
  16. 16.
    I. Rahwan, F. Zablith, and C. Reed. Laying the foundations for a world wide argument web. Artificial Intelligence, 171(10–15):897–921, 2007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    A. Ravenscroft. Promoting thinking and conceptual change with digital dialogue games. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 23(6):453–465, 2007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    C. Reed and G. Rowe. Araucaria: Software for argument analysis. International Journal of AI Tools, 14(3–4):961–980, 2004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 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. 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
  21. 21.
    T. van Gelder. The rationale for rationale. Law, Probability and Risk, 6(1–4):23–42, 2007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    D. Walton. Argumentation Schemes for Presumptive Reasoning. Erlbaum, Mahwah NJ, 1996.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    D. Walton. Legal Argumentation and Evidence. Penn State Press, University Park, PA, 2002.Google Scholar
  24. 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

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag US 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.British University in DubaiUAE & University of EdinburghEdinburghUK
  2. 2.University of DundeeDundeeUK

Personalised recommendations