Adding Provenance and Evolution Information to Modularized Argumentation Models

Classic argumentative discussions can be found in a variety of domains from traditional scientific publishing to today's modern social software. An interactive argumentative discussion usually consists of an initial proposition stated by a single creator, followed by supporting propositions or counter-propositions from other contributors. Thus, the actual argumentation semantics is hidden in the content created by the contributors. Although there are approaches that try to deal with this challenge, most of them focus on a particular domain, limiting the scope of the argumentation to that domain only. In this paper, we describe an abstract model for argumentation which captures the semantics independently of the domain. Following a modularized approach, we also take into account additional important aspects of the argumentation, like the provenance information or its evolution (the temporal side).

[1]  Simon Buckingham Shum,et al.  Modelling discourse in contested domains: A semiotic and cognitive framework , 2006, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..

[2]  Nikos I. Karacapilidis,et al.  The Zeno argumentation framework , 1997, ICAIL '97.

[3]  Michael L. Begeman,et al.  gIBIS: a hypertext tool for team design deliberation , 1987, Hypertext.

[4]  Siegfried Handschuh,et al.  SALT - Semantically Annotated LaTeX for scientific publications , 2007 .

[5]  I. A. Richards,et al.  The Meaning of Meaning: a Study of the Influence of Language upon Thought and of the Science of Symbolism , 1923, Nature.

[6]  Simon Buckingham Shum,et al.  Visualising discourse coherence in nonlinear documents , 2006, TAL.

[7]  C. Raymond Perrault,et al.  Elements of a Plan-Based Theory of Speech Acts , 1979, Cogn. Sci..

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

[9]  C. K. Ogden,et al.  The Meaning of Meaning , 1923 .

[10]  野中 郁次郎,et al.  The Knowledge-Creating Company: How , 1995 .

[11]  Federico Chesani,et al.  Argumentation in the Semantic Web , 2007, IEEE Intelligent Systems.

[12]  Kuntz Werner,et al.  Issues as Elements of Information Systems , 1970 .

[13]  William C. Mann,et al.  RHETORICAL STRUCTURE THEORY: A THEORY OF TEXT ORGANIZATION , 1987 .

[14]  Alan L. Rector,et al.  Modularisation of domain ontologies implemented in description logics and related formalisms including OWL , 2003, K-CAP '03.

[15]  Aldo Gangemi,et al.  Ontology Design Patterns for Semantic Web Content , 2005, SEMWEB.

[16]  Zakaria Maamar,et al.  An Argumentation Framework for Communities of Web Services , 2007, IEEE Intelligent Systems.

[17]  Steffen Staab,et al.  An Argumentation Ontology for DIstributed, Loosely-controlled and evolvInG Engineering processes of oNTologies (DILIGENT) , 2005, ESWC.

[18]  Andreas Harth,et al.  SIOC: an approach to connect web-based communities , 2006, Int. J. Web Based Communities.

[19]  Paul Buitelaar,et al.  LingInfo: Design and Applications of a Model for the Integration of Linguistic Information in Ontologies , 2006 .