Advertisement

Erklärung Als Argumentativer Gruppendiskurs

  • Udo Hahn
Conference paper
Part of the Informatik-Fachberichte book series (INFORMATIK, volume 310)

Zusammenfassung

Das Tracing-Konzept ist die in Expertensystemen bislang verbreitetste Form für die Organisation von Erklärungsprozessen—ein Protokoll der Ableitungsgeschichle einer systemseilig generierten Problemlösung wird zugleich als Erklärung benutzt. Dies ist schon für Ein-Benutzer-Szenarien problematisch, für Gruppen-Problemlösungsprozesse, in deren Verlauf mehrere unterschiedlich spezialisierte menschliche Akteure und technische Entschcidungsunterslützungswerkzeuge bei der Lösung komplexer Problemstellungen kooperieren, jedoch vollends unakzepiabel. Dazu muß das bislang gebräuchliche zu cinfache Erklärungskonzept um subtilere Mechanismen (wie die Ansteuerung unterschiedlicher Abstraktionsebenen und Granularitäten von Erklärungen bzw. eingegrenzten Erklärungsteilen, (Re-)Konstruktion von Erklärungen in argumentativen Erklärungsdebatten, Analyse und Auflösung von Erklärungsfehlern durch Kritisierung von Erklärungen) eines gruppenhandlungsorientierten Argumentationsmodells erweitert werden. Seine grundlegenden Elemente werden in diesem Beitrag skizziert und am Beispiel eines Interaktionsfragments im Konlext des Gruppen-Informalionssyslems CoNeX vorgestellt.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Literatur

  1. Bonfiglio, A./G. Malatesta/ F. Tisato [1991]: Conference Toolkit—A Framework for Real-Time Conferencing. J.M. Bowers & S.D. Benford (eds), Studies in Computer Supported Cooperative Work: Theory, Practice and Design. Amsterdam etc.: North-Holland, pp.63–77.Google Scholar
  2. Borgida, A./T. Imielinski [1984]: Decision Making in Committees—A Framework for Dealing with Inconsistency and Non-Monotonicity. Proc. of the Non-Monotonic Reasoning Workshop. Oct. 17–19,1984, New Paltz, NY, pp.21–32.Google Scholar
  3. Brown, D.C./B. Chandrasekaran [1985]: Expert Systems for a Class of Mechanical Design Activity. J.S. Gero (ed), Knowledge Engineering in Computer-Aided Design. Budapest, Hungary, Sept. 1984. Amsterdam etc.: North-Holland, pp.259–282.Google Scholar
  4. Chang, E. [1986]: Participant Systems. Future Computing Systems, Vol.1, No.3, pp.253–270.Google Scholar
  5. Clancey, W.J. [1984]: Extensions to Rules for Explanation and Tutoring. B.G. Buchanan/ E.H. Shortliffe (eds), Rule-Based Expert Systems: The MYCIN Experiments of the Stanford Heuristic Programming Project. Reading/MA etc.: Addison-Wesley, pp.531–568.Google Scholar
  6. Coelho, H. [1982]: A Formalism for the Structural Analysis of Dialogues. COLING 82: Proc. of the 9th Intl. Conf. on Computational Linguistics. Prague, July 5–10, 1982, pp.61–69.Google Scholar
  7. Conklin, J./M.L. Begeman [1988]: gIBIS—A Hypertext Tool for Exploratory Policy Discussion. ACM Transactions on Office Information Systems, Vol.6, No.4, pp.303–331.Google Scholar
  8. Davis, R./R.G. Smith [1983]: Negotiation as a Metaphor for Distributed Problem Solving. Artificial Intelligence, Vol.20, No. 1, pp.63–109.Google Scholar
  9. van Dijk, T.E. [1980]: Textwissenschaft—eine interdisziplinäre Einfuhrung. Mlinchen: dtv.Google Scholar
  10. Doyle, J. [1979]: A Truth Maintenance System. Artificial Intelligence, Vol.12, pp.231–272.Google Scholar
  11. Doyle, J. [1985]: Reasoned Assumptions and Pareto Optimally. IJCAI-85: Proc. of the 9th Intl. JointConf. on Artificial Intelligence. Vol.1. 18-23 Aug. 1985, Los Angeles, Cal., pp.87–90.Google Scholar
  12. Eherer, S./M. Jarke/ U. Hahn [1990]: Eine Software-Umgebung für die Erstellung von Hy-permedia-Dokumenten durch Autorengruppen. P. Gloor & N. Streitz (eds), Hypertext und Hypermedia: von theoretischen Konzepten zur praktischen Anwendung. Berlin: Springer, pp.79–96.Google Scholar
  13. Eherer, S./M. Jarke/ M. Jeusfeld/ A. Miethsam/ T. Rose [1989]: A Global KBMS for Database Software Evolution—ConceptBase 2.0 User Manual. Passau: Universität Passau, Fakul-tät für Mathematik und Informatik (MIP-8936).Google Scholar
  14. Eriksson, A./A.-L. Johansson [1985]: Neat Explanation of Proof Trees. IJCAI-85: Proc. of the 9th Intl. Joint Conf. on Artificial Intelligence. Vol. 1, 18–23 August 1985, Los Angeles, Cal., pp.379–381.Google Scholar
  15. Farquhar, A. [1989]: Modifying the Model Set during Diagnosis. GWAI-89: Proc. I3th German Workshop on Artificial Intelligence. Eringerfeld, Sept. 18–22, 1989. Berlin: Springer, pp.388–397.Google Scholar
  16. Flowers, M./R. Mcguire/ L. Birnbaum [1982]: Adversary Arguments and the Logic of Personal Attacks. W.G. Lehnert & M.H. Ringle (eds), Strategies for Natural Language Processing. Hillsdale/NJ, London: L. Erlbaum, pp.275–294.Google Scholar
  17. Grosz, BJ. [1989]: Collaborative Planning for Discourse (Abstract). IJCAI-89: Proc. of the 11th Intl. Joint Conf. on Artificial Intelligence. Vol. 2. Detroit, Michigan, U.S.A., 20–25 Aug. 1989. San Mateo/CA: Morgan Kaufmann, pp.774–775.Google Scholar
  18. Hahn, U. [1989]: Dialogstrukturen in Gruppendiskussionen—Ein Modell für argumentative Verhand-lungen mehrerer Agenten. GWAI-89: Proc. 13th German Workshop on Artificial Intelligence. Eringerfeld,-Sept. 18–22, 1989. Berlin etc.: Springer, pp.409–420.Google Scholar
  19. Hahn, U./M. Jarke/ S. Eherer/ K. Kreplin [1991]: CoAUTHOR—A Hypermedia Group Authoring Environment. J.M. Bowers & S.D. Benford (eds), Studies in Computer Supported Cooperative Work: Theory, Practice andDesign. Amsterdam etc.: North-Holland, pp.79–100.Google Scholar
  20. Hahn, U./M. Jarke/ T. Rose [1990]: Group Work in Software Projects—Integrated Conceptual Models and Collaboration Tools. S. Gibbs & A.A. Verrijn-Stuart (eds), Multi-User Interfaces and Applications. Proc. of the IFIP WG8.4 Conf. on Multi-User Interfaces and Applications. Herak-lion, Crete, Greece, Sept. 24–26,1990. Amsterdam etc.: North-Holland, pp.83–101.Google Scholar
  21. Heidrich, C.H. [1982]: Montague-Grammers [sic!] for Argumentative Dialogues. E.M. Barth & J.L. Martens (eds), Argumentation. Approaches to Theory Formulation.Contnbutions to the Groningen Conf. on the Theory of Argumentation. Amsterdam: J. Benjamins, pp.191–227.Google Scholar
  22. Hempel. C.G. [1965]: Aspects of Scientific Explanation. C.G. Hempel, Aspects of Scientific Explanation and Other Essays in the Philosophy of Science. New York: Free Pr., pp.331–496.Google Scholar
  23. Hempel, C.G./P. Oppenheim [1965]: Studies in the Logic of Explanation. C.G. Hempel, Aspects of Scientific Explanation and Other Essays in the Philosophy of Science. New York: Free Pr., pp.245–290. (Nachdruck aus Philosophy of Science, Vol.15, 1948, pp.135-175).Google Scholar
  24. Huhns, M.N./L.M. Stephens/ R.D. Bonnell [1983]: Control and Cooperation in Distributed Expert Systems. Proc. of the IEEE Southeastcon. April 1983, pp.241–245.Google Scholar
  25. Jarke, M./U. Hahn [1987]: Verhandlungskonzepte für die rechnergestützte Teamarbeit. Proc. GI-17. Jahrestagung. Munchen, 20.-23. Okt. 1987. Berlin: Springer, pp.654–670.Google Scholar
  26. Kandt, K. [1987]: A Tool to Support Competitive Argumentation. Journal of Management Information Systems, Vol.3, No.4, pp.54–64.Google Scholar
  27. Kleer, J. de [1986]: An Assumption-Based TMS. Artificial Intelligence, Vol.28, pp. 127–162.Google Scholar
  28. Klein, W. [1980]: Argumentation and Argument. Zeitschrift für Literaturwissenschaft und Linguistik, Vol.10, Nos.38/39, pp.9–57.Google Scholar
  29. Kornfeld, W.A./Ce. Hewitt [1981]: The Scientific Community Metaphor. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, SMC-11, No. 1 (Jan), pp.24–33.Google Scholar
  30. Lowe, D. [1985]: Cooperative Structuring of Information—The Representation of Reasoning and Debate. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, Vol.23, pp.97–111.Google Scholar
  31. McKeown, K.R./M. Wish/ K. Matthews [1985]: Tailoring Explanations for the User. IJCAI-85: Proc. of the 9th Intl. Joint Conf on Artificial Intelligence. Vol. 2, 18-23 August 1985, Los Angeles, Cal., pp.794–798.Google Scholar
  32. Mylopoulos, J./A. Borgida/ M. Jarke/ M. Koubarakis [1990]: Telos—A Language for Representing Knowledge about Information Systems. ACM Transactions on Information Systems, Vol. 8, No.4.Google Scholar
  33. Neches, R./W.R. S Wartout/ J.D. Moore [1985]: Enhanced Maintenance and Explanation of Expert Systems through Explicit Models of their Development. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, SE-11, No. 11 (Nov), pp. 1337–1351.Google Scholar
  34. Popper, K.R. [1976]: Logik der Forschung. Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr, 19766.Google Scholar
  35. Rychener, M.D./R. Banares-Alcantara/ E. Subrahmanian [1984]: A Rule-Based Blackboard Kernel System: Some Principles in Design. Proc. of the IEEE Workshop on Principles of Knowledge-Based Systems. Denver, Colorado, Dec. 3-4, 1984, pp.59–64.Google Scholar
  36. Schurz, G. [1991]: Erklärungsmodelle in der Wissenschaftstheorie und in der Künstlichen Intelli-genz. (in diesem Band).Google Scholar
  37. Scott, A.C./Wj. Clancey/ R. Davis/ E.H. Shortliffe [1984]: Methods for Generating Explanations. B.G. Buchanan & E.H. Shortliffe (eds), Rule-Based Expert Systems: The MYCIN Experiments of the Stanford Heuristic Programming Project. Reading/MA etc.: Addison-Wesley, pp.338–362.Google Scholar
  38. Smith, R.L./W.H. Graves/ L.H. Blaine/ V.G. Marinov [1975]: Computer-Assisted Axiomatic Mathematics—Informal Rigor. O. Lacarme & R. Lewis (eds), Computers in Education. Part 2. Amsterdam: North-Holland, pp.803–809.Google Scholar
  39. SÖkeland, W. [1981]: Erklärungen und Argumentationen in wissenschaftlicher Kommunikation. T. Bungarten (ed), Wissenschaftssprache: Beiträge zur Methodologie, theoretischen Fundierung und Deskription. München: W. Fink, pp.261–293.Google Scholar
  40. Stansfeeld, J.L./B.P. Carr/ I.P. Goldstein [1976]: WUMPUS Advisor I—A First Implementation of a Program that Tutors Logical and Probabilistic Reasoning Skills. Cambridge/MA: AI Laboratory, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (Memo 381).Google Scholar
  41. Stefik, M. et al.[1987]: Beyond the Chalkboard—Computer Support for Collaboration and Problem Solving in Meetings. Communications of the ACM, Vol.30, No. 1, pp.32–47.Google Scholar
  42. Steinberg, L. [1980]: Question Ordering in Mixed Initiative Program Specification Dialogue. AAAI 1980 Conference. Proc. of the 1st Annual National Conf. on Artificial Intelligence. Stanford Univ., Aug. 18-21, 1980, pp.61–63.Google Scholar
  43. Stoyan, H. [1991]: Erklarungen und Beweise. (in diesem Band).Google Scholar
  44. Swartout, W.R. [1977]: A Digitalis Therapy Advisor with Explanations. IJCAI-77: Proc. of the 5th Intl. Joint Conf. on Artificial Intelligence. M.I.T., Cambridge, Mass., U.S.A., Aug. 22-25, 1977, pp.819–825.Google Scholar
  45. Sycara, K.P. [1989]: Argumentation—Planning Other Agents’ Plans. IJCAI-89: Proc. of the IIth Intl. Joint Conf. on Artificial Intelligence. Vol. 1. Detroit, Michigan, U.S.A., 20-25 Aug. 1989. San Mateo/CA: Morgan Kaufmann, pp.517–523.Google Scholar
  46. Toulmin, S. [1958]: The Uses of Argument. Cambridge: Cambridge U.P.Google Scholar
  47. Toulmin, S./R. Reeke/ A. Janik [1979]: An Introduction to Reasoning. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  48. Trigg, R.H. [1988]: Guided Tours and Tabletops—Tools for Communicating in a Hypertext Environment. ACM Transactions on Office Information Systems,Vol.6, No.4, pp.398–414.Google Scholar
  49. Wallis, J.W./ E.H. Shortliffe [1984]: Customized Explanations Using Causal Knowledge. B.G. Buchanan & E.H. Shortliffe (eds), Rule-Based Expert Systems: The MYCIN Experiments of the Stanford Heuristic Programming Project. Reading/MA etc.: Addison-Wesley, pp.371–388.Google Scholar
  50. Weiner, J.L. [1980]: BLAH—A System which Explains its Reasoning. Artificial Intelligence, Vol.15, pp. 19–48.Google Scholar
  51. Winograd, T. [1987]: A Language/Action Perspective on the Design of Cooperative Work. Human-Computer Interaction, Vol.3, 1987-1988, No. 1, pp.3–30.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Wong, W.-K.C. [1986]: A Theory of Argument Coherence. Austin/DC: Artificial Intelligence Laboratory, Univ. of Texas at Austin (AI TR 86-29).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1992

Authors and Affiliations

  • Udo Hahn
    • 1
  1. 1.Albert-Ludwigs-Universität FreiburgLinguistische Informatik/Computerlinguistik WerthmannplatzFreiburgGermany

Personalised recommendations