The need of diagrams based on Toulmin schema application: an aeronautical case study

In this article, Justification Diagrams are introduced for structuring evidence to support conclusions that are reached from results of simulation studies. An industrial application is used to illustrate the use of the Justification Diagrams. Adapted from the Toulmin schema, the aim of Justification Diagram is to define a comprehensive, auditable and shareable notation to explain the results, the input data, the assumptions made and the techniques applied, to construct a cogent conclusion. Further, the Justification Diagrams provide a visual representation of the argument that aims to corroborate the specified claims, or conclusions. A large part of this work is based on the application of the Justification Diagrams in the context of the European project, TOICA. The Justification Diagrams were used to structure all justifications that would be needed to convince an authority that a simulation process, and the associated results, upheld a particular conclusion. These diagrams are built concurrently in a product development process that accompanies the various stages of Verification and Validation (V&V) and where, for each design stage of V&V, argumentation is constructed by aggregating evidence and documents produced at this design stage

Formal Assurance Arguments: A Solution In Search of a Problem?

An assurance case comprises evidence and argument showing how that evidence supports assurance claims (e.g., about safety or security). It is unsurprising that some computer scientists have proposed formalizing assurance arguments: most associate formality with rigor. But while engineers can sometimes prove that source code refines a formal specification, it is not clear that formalization will improve assurance arguments or that this benefit is worth its cost. For example, formalization might reduce the benefits of argumentation by limiting the audience to people who can read formal logic. In this paper, we present (1) a systematic survey of the literature surrounding formal assurance arguments, (2) an analysis of errors that formalism can help to eliminate, (3) a discussion of existing evidence, and (4) suggestions for experimental work to definitively answer the question

Web-centric systems in support of argumentation, negotiation, and organizatioinal memory

The purpose of this thesis is to propose and demonstrate a new negotiation and argumentation medium. This medium will take advantage of the latest in web technologies while conducting a detailed analysis and design of a prototype web based decision support system to support on-line argumentation, claims, and team decisions. The information obtained from the application will be stored in an ODBC database, to be used as part of the organizational memory. Organization memory will significantly enhance an organizations ability to utilize historical data in conjunction with current decision making requirements. The findings in this study strongly support the strengths of the action-resource based argumentation system (ARBAS) model and indicate that future research and application development would significantly advance the fields of web-based negotiation and argumentation. A web-centric prototype developed during this research can be viewed at HTTP://WWW.CIMNET. NPS. NAVY. MIL/ THESIShttp://archive.org/details/webcentricsystem00vickCaptain, United States ArmyApproved for public release; distribution is unlimited

Argumentation models and their use in corpus annotation: practice, prospects, and challenges

The study of argumentation is transversal to several research domains, from philosophy to linguistics, from the law to computer science and artificial intelligence. In discourse analysis, several distinct models have been proposed to harness argumentation, each with a different focus or aim. To analyze the use of argumentation in natural language, several corpora annotation efforts have been carried out, with a more or less explicit grounding on one of such theoretical argumentation models. In fact, given the recent growing interest in argument mining applications, argument-annotated corpora are crucial to train machine learning models in a supervised way. However, the proliferation of such corpora has led to a wide disparity in the granularity of the argument annotations employed. In this paper, we review the most relevant theoretical argumentation models, after which we survey argument annotation projects closely following those theoretical models. We also highlight the main simplifications that are often introduced in practice. Furthermore, we glimpse other annotation efforts that are not so theoretically grounded but instead follow a shallower approach. It turns out that most argument annotation projects make their own assumptions and simplifications, both in terms of the textual genre they focus on and in terms of adapting the adopted theoretical argumentation model for their own agenda. Issues of compatibility among argument-annotated corpora are discussed by looking at the problem from a syntactical, semantic, and practical perspective. Finally, we discuss current and prospective applications of models that take advantage of argument-annotated corpora

Legal knowledge-based systems: new directions in system design

This thesis examines and critiques the concept of 'legal knowledge-based’ systems. Work on legal knowledge-based systems is dominated by work in 'artificial intelligence and law’. It seeks to automate the application of law and to automate the solution of legal problems. Automation however, has proved elusive. In contrast to such automation, this thesis proposes the creation of legal knowledge-based systems based on the concept of augmentation of legal work. Focusing on systems that augment legal work opens new possibilities for system creation and use. To inform how systems might augment legal work, this thesis examines philosophy, psychology and legal theory for information they provide on how processes of legal reasoning operate. It is argued that, in contrast to conceptions of law adopted in artificial intelligence and law, 'sensemaking' provides a useful perspective with which to create systems. It is argued that visualisation, and particularly diagrams, are an important and under considered element of reasoning and that producing systems that support diagramming of processes of legal reasoning would provide useful support for legal work. This thesis reviews techniques for diagramming aspects of sensemaking. In particular this thesis examines standard methods for diagramming arguments and methods for diagramming reasoning. These techniques are applied in the diagramming of legal judgments. A review is conducted of systems that have been constructed to support the construction of diagrams of argument and reasoning. Drawing upon these examinations, this thesis highlights the necessity of appropriate representations for supporting reasoning. The literature examining diagramming for reasoning support provides little discussion of appropriate representations. This thesis examines theories of representation for insight they can provide into the design of appropriate representations. It is concluded that while the theories of representation that are examined do not determine what amounts to a good representation, guidelines for the design and choice of representations can be distilled. These guidelines cannot map the class of legal knowledge-based systems that augment legal sensemaking, they can however, be used to explore this class and to inform construction of systems