A Three-Layer Argumentation Framework

Argumentation frameworks which are abstract are suitable for the study of independent properties of any specific aspect (e.g. arguments sceptical and credulous admissible) that are relevant for any argumentation context. However, its direct adoption on specific application contexts requires dealing with questions such as the argument structure, the argument categories, the conditions under which an attack/support is established between arguments, etc. This paper presents a generic argumentation framework which comprehends a conceptualization layer to capture the expressivity and semantics of the argumentation data employed in a specific context and simplifies its adoption by applications. The conceptualization layer together with the defined argument structure is exploited to automatically derive the attack and support relationships between arguments.

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

[2]  Claudette Cayrol,et al.  Gradual Valuation for Bipolar Argumentation Frameworks , 2005, ECSQARU.

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

[4]  Dimitris Papadias,et al.  Computer supported argumentation and collaborative decision making: the HERMES system , 2001, Inf. Syst..

[5]  Barbara Messing,et al.  An Introduction to MultiAgent Systems , 2002, Künstliche Intell..

[6]  Iyad Rahwan,et al.  Representing and classifying arguments on the Semantic Web , 2011, The Knowledge Engineering Review.

[7]  Bart Verheij,et al.  On the existence and multiplicity of extensions in dialectical argumentation , 2002, NMR.

[8]  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..

[9]  Trevor J. M. Bench-Capon Persuasion in Practical Argument Using Value-based Argumentation Frameworks , 2003, J. Log. Comput..

[10]  Michael Clarke,et al.  Symbolic and Quantitative Approaches to Reasoning and Uncertainty , 1991, Lecture Notes in Computer Science.

[11]  C. Cayrol,et al.  On the Acceptability of Arguments in Bipolar Argumentation Frameworks , 2005, ECSQARU.

[12]  Martin Caminada,et al.  On the evaluation of argumentation formalisms , 2007, Artif. Intell..

[13]  Michael E. Bratman,et al.  Intention, Plans, and Practical Reason , 1991 .

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

[15]  Steffen Staab,et al.  What Is an Ontology? , 2009, Handbook on Ontologies.

[16]  Douglas Walton,et al.  Fundamentals of critical argumentation , 2006, Critical reasoning and argumentation.

[17]  Michael Wooldridge,et al.  Reasoning about rational agents , 2000, Intelligent robots and autonomous agents.

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

[19]  Claudette Cayrol,et al.  On bipolarity in argumentation frameworks , 2008, NMR.

[20]  Richard Moran,et al.  Authority and Estrangement: An Essay on Self-Knowledge , 2002 .

[21]  Douglas Walton,et al.  Argumentation Theory: A Very Short Introduction , 2009, Argumentation in Artificial Intelligence.

[22]  Reedchris,et al.  Towards an argument interchange format , 2006 .

[23]  Iyad Rahwan,et al.  Arguments in OWL: A Progress Report , 2008, COMMA.

[24]  Michael Wooldridge,et al.  Reasoning about rational agents MIT Press , 2000 .

[25]  Pietro Baroni,et al.  Semantics of Abstract Argument Systems , 2009, Argumentation in Artificial Intelligence.

[26]  Bart Verheij,et al.  DefLog: on the Logical Interpretation of Prima Facie Justified Assumptions , 2003, J. Log. Comput..