Representing dialogic argumentation

Dialogic argumentation is a crucial component in many computational domains, and forms a core component of argumentation theory. This paper compares two approaches to dialogue that have grown from two different disciplines; the descriptive-normative approach of applied philosophy, and the formal, implemented approach of computer science. The commonalities between the approaches are explored in developing a means for representing dialogic argumentation in a common format. This common format uses an XML-based language that views locutions as state-changing operations, drawing on an analogy with classical artificial intelligence planning. This representation is then shown to hold a number of important advantages in areas of artificial intelligence and philosophy.

[1]  David Stuart Robertson,et al.  Argument-based applications to knowledge engineering , 2000, The Knowledge Engineering Review.

[2]  Staffan Larsson,et al.  Information state and dialogue management in the TRINDI dialogue move engine toolkit , 2000, Natural Language Engineering.

[3]  T. Gordon.  The Pleadings Game , 1993, ICAIL '93.

[4]  Gwyneth Doherty-Sneddon,et al.  The Reliability of a Dialogue Structure Coding Scheme , 1997, CL.

[5]  William Mann,et al.  Dialogue Macrogame Theory , 2002, SIGDIAL Workshop.

[6]  Jim D. Mackenzie,et al.  Question-begging in non-cumulative systems , 1979, J. Philos. Log..

[7]  M. de Rijke,et al.  JFAK. Essays Dedicated to Johan van Benthem on the occasion of his 50th Birthday , 1999 .

[8]  Thomas F. Gordon,et al.  The Pleadings Game , 1994, Artificial Intelligence and Law.

[9]  Richard Fikes,et al.  STRIPS: A New Approach to the Application of Theorem Proving to Problem Solving , 1971, IJCAI.

[10]  Eduard H. Hovy,et al.  Pragmatics and Natural Language Generation , 1990, Artif. Intell..

[11]  Prabuddha De,et al.  Proceedings of the 20th international conference on Information Systems , 1999 .

[12]  Chris Reed,et al.  Dialogue frames in agent communication , 1998, Proceedings International Conference on Multi Agent Systems (Cat. No.98EX160).

[13]  J. Sadock.  Speech acts , 2007 .

[14]  Tuomas Sandholm,et al.  An Implementation of the Contract Net Protocol Based on Marginal Cost Calculations , 1993, AAAI.

[15]  Phan Minh Dung,et al.  On the Acceptability of Arguments and its Fundamental Role in Nonmonotonic Reasoning, Logic Programming and n-Person Games , 1995, Artif. Intell..

[16]  Frank Dignum,et al.  Issues in Agent Communication , 2000, Lecture Notes in Computer Science.

[17]  Barbara Dunin-Keplicz,et al.  Creating Collective Intention through Dialogue , 2001, Log. J. IGPL.

[18]  Nicholas R. Jennings.  Agent-Oriented Software Engineering , 1999, MAAMAW.

[19]  Bernhard Bauer,et al.  Agent UML : A formalism for specifying multiagent interaction , 2001 .

[20]  C. L. Hamblin.  Mathematical models of dialogue1 , 2008 .

[21]  Reid G. Smith,et al.  The Contract Net Protocol: High-Level Communication and Control in a Distributed Problem Solver , 1980, IEEE Transactions on Computers.

[22]  Jk Joel Katzav,et al.  Argument research corpus , 2004 .

[23]  Andrew S. Coulson,et al.  RAGs: A Novel Approach to Computerized Genetic Risk Assessment and Decision Support from Pedigrees , 2001, Methods of Information in Medicine.

[24]  Uwe Reyle,et al.  From discourse to logic , 1993 .

[25]  D. Walton,et al.  Commitment In Dialogue , 1995 .

[26]  Erik C. W. Krabbe,et al.  Profiles of Dialogue , 1999 .

[27]  Munindar P. Singh.  A Social Semantics for Agent Communication Languages , 2000, Issues in Agent Communication.

[28]  Amy Isard,et al.  An XML architecture for the HCRC Map Task Corpus , 2001 .

[29]  Mark Klein,et al.  Designing robust, open electronic marketplaces of contract net agents , 1999, ICIS.

[30]  Lauri Carlson.  Dialogue Games: An Approach to Discourse Analysis , 1982 .

[31]  Wilhelm K. Essler,et al.  Konzepte der Dialektik , 1981 .

[32]  Henry Prakken,et al.  Relating Protocols For Dynamic Dispute With Logics For Defeasible Argumentation , 2000, Synthese.

[33]  Chris Reed,et al.  Diagramming, Argumentation Schemes and Critical Questions , 2003 .

[34]  Peter McBurney,et al.  Argumentation-Based Dialogues for Agent Co-Ordination , 2003 .

[35]  Chris Reed,et al.  Araucaria: Software for Puzzles in Argument Diagramming and XML , 2001 .

[36]  David R. Traum,et al.  Discourse Obligations in Dialogue Processing , 1994, ACL.

[37]  Jim D. Mackenzie,et al.  Four dialogue systems , 1990, Stud Logica.

[38]  Nicholas R. Jennings,et al.  Negotiating the Semantics of Agent Communication Languages , 2002, Comput. Intell..

[39]  Jörg P. Müller,et al.  Agent UML: A Formalism for Specifying Multiagent Software Systems , 2001, Int. J. Softw. Eng. Knowl. Eng..

[40]  Roderic A. Girle,et al.  Commands in Dialogue Logic , 1996, FAPR.