ArguBlogging:an application for the Argument Web

In this paper, we present a software tool for ‘ArguBlogging’, which allows users to construct debate and discussions across blogs, linking existing and new online resources to form distributed, structured conversations. Arguments and counterarguments can be posed by giving opinions on one’s own blog and replying to other bloggers’ posts. The resulting argument structure is connected to the Argument Web, in which argumentative structures are made semantically explicit and machine-processable. We discuss the ArguBlogging tool and the underlying infrastructure and ontology of the Argument Web

Making sense out of polemics

We intend to draw attention to a topic in practical argumentation that is complex, unavoidable and of substantial consequence in social, political and economical terms: polemics. Our target is a rather frequent —and far from trivial— type of polemics, those that are generated around action proposals that affect public well-being. Our aim is to develop a framework to identify the argumentative components of an actual controversy and eventually provide means to intervene in the ongoing disputation. With that focus, in this paper we outline the basic elements of a conceptual framework that will allow us to map the topic and articulate some salient opportunities.The authors wish to acknowledge the support of SINTELNET (FET Open Coordinated Action FP7-ICT-2009-C Project No. 286370) in the writing of this paperPeer reviewe

Formalization of the ad hominem argumentation scheme

In this paper, several examples from the literature, and one central new one, are used as case studies of texts of discourse containing an argumentation scheme that has now been widely investigated in literature on argumentation. Argumentation schemes represent common patterns of reasoning used in everyday conversational discourse. The most typical ones represent defeasible arguments based on nonmonotonic reasoning. Each scheme has a matching set of critical questions used to evaluate a particular argument fitting that scheme. The project is to study how to build a formal computational model of this scheme for the circumstantial ad hominem argument using argumentation tools and systems developed in artificial intelligence. It is shown how the formalization built using these tools is applicable to the tasks of identification, analysis and evaluation of the central case studied. One important implication of the work is that it provides a foundational basis for showing how other argumentation schemes can be formalized

Compliance checking in reified IO logic via SHACL

Reified Input/Output (I/O) logic[21] has been recently proposed to model real-world norms in terms of the logic in [11]. This is massively grounded on the notion of reification, and it has specifically designed to model meaning of natural language sentences, such as the ones occurring in existing legislation. This paper presents a methodology to carry out compliance checking on reified I/O logic formulae. These are translated in SHACL (Shapes Constraint Language) shapes, a recent W3C recommendation to validate and reason with RDF triplestores. Compliance checking is then enforced by validating RDF graphs describing states of affairs with respect to these SHACL shapes

Large-Scale Legal Reasoning with Rules and Databases

Traditionally, computational knowledge representation and reasoning focused its attention on rich domains such as the law. The main underlying assumption of traditional legal knowledge representation and reasoning is that knowledge and data are both available in main memory. However, in the era of big data, where large amounts of data are generated daily, an increasing rangeof scientific disciplines, as well as business and human activities, are becoming data-driven. This chapter summarises existing research on legal representation and reasoning in order to uncover technical challenges associated both with the integration of rules and databases and with the main concepts of the big data landscape. We expect these challenges lead naturally to future research directions towards achieving large scale legal reasoning with rules and databases

ProCLAIM: an argument-based model for deliberating over safety critical actions

In this Thesis we present an argument-based model – ProCLAIM – intended to provide a setting for heterogeneous agents to deliberate on whether a proposed action is safe. That is, whether or not a proposed action is expected to cause some undesirable side effect that will justify not to undertake the proposed action. This is particularly relevant in safetycritical environments where the consequences ensuing from an inappropriate action may be catastrophic. For the practical realisation of the deliberations the model features a mediator agent with three main tasks: 1) guide the participating agents in what their valid argumentation moves are at each stage of the deliberation; 2) decide whether submitted arguments should be accepted on the basis of their relevance; and finally, 3) evaluate the accepted arguments in order to provide an assessment on whether the proposed action should or should not be undertaken, where the argument evaluation is based on domain consented knowledge (e.g guidelines and regulations), evidence and the decision makers’ expertise. To motivate ProCLAIM’s practical value and generality the model is applied in two scenarios: human organ transplantation and industrial wastewater. In the former scenario, ProCLAIM is used to facilitate the deliberation between two medical doctors on whether an available organ for transplantation is or is not suitable for a particular potential recipient (i.e. whether it is safe to transplant the organ). In the later scenario, a number of agents deliberate on whether an industrial discharge is environmentally safe.En esta tesis se presenta un modelo basado en la Argumentación –ProCLAIM– cuyo n es proporcionar un entorno para la deliberación sobre acciones críticas para la seguridad entre agentes heterogéneos. En particular, el propósito de la deliberación es decidir si los efectos secundario indeseables de una acción justi can no llevarla a cabo. Esto es particularmente relevante en entornos críticos para la seguridad, donde las consecuencias que se derivan de una acción inadecuada puede ser catastró cas. Para la realización práctica de las deliberaciones propuestas, el modelo cuenta con un agente mediador con tres tareas principales: 1) guiar a los agentes participantes indicando cuales son las líneas argumentación válidas en cada etapa de la deliberación; 2) decidir si los argumentos presentados deben ser aceptadas sobre la base de su relevancia y, por último, 3) evaluar los argumentos aceptados con el n de proporcionar una valoración sobre la seguridad de la acción propuesta. Esta valoración se basa en guías y regulaciones del dominio de aplicación, en evidencia y en la opinión de los expertos responsables de la decisión. Para motivar el valor práctico y la generalidad de ProCLAIM, este modelo se aplica en dos escenarios distintos: el trasplante de órganos y la gestión de aguas residuales. En el primer escenario el modelo se utiliza para facilitar la deliberación entre dos médicos sobre la viabilidad del transplante de un órgano para un receptor potencial (es decir, si el transplante es seguro). En el segundo escenario varios agentes deliberan sobre si los efectos de un vertido industrial con el propósito de minimizar su impacto medioambiental

Argumentation and Defeasible Reasoning in the Law

Different formalisms for defeasible reasoning have been used to represent knowledge and reason in the legal field. In this work, we provide an overview of the following logic-based approaches to defeasible reasoning: defeasible logic, Answer Set Programming, ABA+, ASPIC+, and DeLP. We compare features of these approaches under three perspectives: the logical model (knowledge representation), the method (computational mechanisms), and the technology (available software resources). On top of that, two real examples in the legal domain are designed and implemented in ASPIC+ to showcase the benefit of an argumentation approach in real-world domains. The CrossJustice and Interlex projects are taken as a testbed, and experiments are conducted with the Arg2P technology