Can AI models capture natural language argumentation?

International audienceFormal AI models of argumentation define arguments as reasons that support claims (which may be beliefs, decisions, actions, etc.). Such arguments may be attacked by other arguments. The main issue is then to identify the accepted ones. Several semantics were thus proposed for evaluating the arguments. Works in linguistics focus mainly on understanding the notion of argument, identifying its types, and describing different forms of counter-argumentation. This paper advocates that such typologies are instrumental for capturing real argumentations. It shows that some of the forms cannot be handled properly by AI models. Finally, it shows that the use of square of oppositions (a very old logical device) illuminates the interrelations between the different forms of argumentation

Aligning IT/IS with Business Strategy Re-visited: a view from Complex Adaptive Systems

This paper explores the co-relational process activities of information technology and systems (IT/IS) and business strategy alignment. The notion of “process” as being strategy and strategic alignment has been observed but not examined. Organizations are both complex and adaptive, and these attributes create significant challenges for managers when assessing strategic requirements. A need exists to further understand alignment as a process and embrace this concept when aligning business IT/IS with the strategic goals of the organisation. This highlights an important distinction of “process” that recasts the nature of congruence and reassesses the appropriateness and usefulness of current practice. The authors propose the use of principles underpinning complex adaptive systems as a way to re-orientate IT/IS alignment in a meaningful and more appropriate manner. The context for the study is the UK Health Service, and informed by a case analysis of 26 senior members from a Scottish Health Board