AIF-EL - An OWL2-EL-compliant AIF ontology

This paper briefly describes AIF-EL, an OWL2-EL compliant ontology for the Argument Interchange Format.</p

Towards modelling dialectic and eristic argumentation on the social web

Modelling arguments on the social web is a key challenge for those studying computational argumentation. This is because formal models of argumentation tend to assume dialectic and logical argument, whereas argumentation on the social web is highly eristic. In this paper we explore this gap by bringing together the Argument Interchange Format (AIF) and the Semantic Interlinked Online Communities (SIOC) project, and modelling a sample of social web arguments. This allows us to explore which eristic effects cannot be modelled, and also to see which features of the social web are missing.We show that even in our small sample, from YouTube, Twitter and Facebook, eristic effects (such as playing to the audience) were missing from the final model, and that key social features (such as likes and dislikes) were also not represented. This suggests that both eristic and social extensions need to be made to our models of argumentation in order to deal effectively with the social we

A Study of AIF Argument Networks Anomalies and a Characterization of its Solutions

The Argument Interchange Format (AIF) is a communal project with the purpose of developing a way of interchanging data between tools for argument manipulation and visualization. The AIF project also aims to develop a commonly agreed upon core ontology that specifies the basic concepts used to express arguments and their mutual relations. However, the flexibility provided by the AIF core ontology may lead to ambiguous or undesired interpretations. If ambiguous and anomalous situations are allowed, the purpose of using AIF as a common lingua for the research and development of argumentation systems might be jeopardized. The goal of this work is to identify anomalies that can arise and propose solutions for them.Sociedad Argentina de Informática e Investigación Operativ

Dealing with Qualitative and Quantitative Features in Legal Domains

In this work, we enrich a formalism for argumentation by including a formal characterization of features related to the knowledge, in order to capture proper reasoning in legal domains. We add meta-data information to the arguments in the form of labels representing quantitative and qualitative data about them. These labels are propagated through an argumentative graph according to the relations of support, conflict, and aggregation between arguments.Comment: arXiv admin note: text overlap with arXiv:1903.0186

A formal account of complex argumentation in a critical discussion

In this paper, I present a dialogue game approach to the argumentation stage of a critical discussion. This formal perspective on the pragma-dialectical ideal model is meant to facilitate a contribution of pragma-dialectical theorising to the field of argumentation and computation. The dialogue game is based on the technical rules for a critical discussion that relate to the argumentation stage, and I will show how sequences of moves in the dialogue game relate to complex argumentation structures