A Framework for Enriched, Controlled On-line Discussion Forums for e-Government Policy-making

The paper motivates and proposes a framework for enriched on-line discussion forums for e-government policy-making, where pro and con statements for positions are structured, recorded, represented, and evaluated. The framework builds on current technologies for multi-threaded discussion lists by integrating modes, natural language processing, ontologies, and formal argumentation frameworks. With modes other than the standard \reply comment", users specify the semantic relationship between a new statement and the previous statement; the result is an argument graph. Natural language processing with a controlled language constrains the domain of discourse, eliminates ambiguity and unclarity, allows a logical representation of statements, and facilitates information extraction. However, the controlled language is highly expressive and natural . Ontologies represent the knowledge of the domain. Argumentation frameworks evaluate the argument graph and generate sets of consistent statements. The output of the system is a rich and articulated representation of a set of policy statements which supports queries, information extraction, and inference.

[1]  Marie-Francine Moens,et al.  Approaches to Text Mining Arguments from Legal Cases , 2010, Semantic Processing of Legal Texts.

[2]  Ann Macintosh Moving Toward Intelligent Policy Development , 2009 .

[3]  Thomas R. Gruber,et al.  A translation approach to portable ontology specifications , 1993, Knowl. Acquis..

[4]  Iyad Rahwan,et al.  On building argumentation schemes using the argument interchange format , 2007 .

[5]  Chris Reed,et al.  Araucaria: Software for Argument Analysis, Diagramming and Representation , 2004, Int. J. Artif. Intell. Tools.

[6]  Kuhn Tobias,et al.  Controlled English for knowledge representation , 2010 .

[7]  Anthony Hunter,et al.  Elements of Argumentation , 2007, ECSQARU.

[8]  Peter McBurney,et al.  The eightfold way of deliberation dialogue , 2007, Int. J. Intell. Syst..

[9]  Rudy Prabowo,et al.  Evolving debates in online communication: a graph analytical approach , 2008, Internet Res..

[10]  Henry Prakken,et al.  An abstract framework for argumentation with structured arguments , 2010, Argument Comput..

[11]  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..

[12]  Henry Prakken,et al.  The Carneades model of argument and burden of proof , 2007, Artif. Intell..

[13]  H. J. V. Herik,et al.  Legal Knowledge Based Systems , 1999 .

[14]  Katie Atkinson,et al.  Using Computational Argumentation to Support E-participation , 2009, IEEE Intelligent Systems.

[15]  D. Walton Argumentation Schemes for Presumptive Reasoning , 1995 .

[16]  Ulrich Endriss,et al.  Abstract models for dialogue protocols , 2007, J. Log. Lang. Inf..

[17]  Kaarel Kaljurand,et al.  Attempto Controlled English for Knowledge Representation , 2008, Reasoning Web.

[18]  Rudy Prabowo,et al.  Finding and tracking subjects within an ongoing debate , 2008, J. Informetrics.

[19]  Rudy Prabowo,et al.  Sentiment analysis: A combined approach , 2009, J. Informetrics.

[20]  Rinke Hoekstra,et al.  Ontology Representation - Design Patterns and Ontologies that Make Sense , 2009, Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications.

[21]  Henry Prakken,et al.  Formalising ordinary legal disputes: a case study , 2008, Artificial Intelligence and Law.

[22]  Mike Thelwall,et al.  Blog search engines , 2007, Online Inf. Rev..

[23]  Bart Verheij,et al.  ArguMed - A Template-Based Argument Mediation System for Lawyers , 1999 .