Advertisement

A Planning-Based Approach for Enacting World Wide Argument Web

  • Ioan Alfred Leţia
  • Adrian Groza
Part of the Studies in Computational Intelligence book series (SCI, volume 162)

Summary

The goal of this research was to identify the suitable technologies for enacting the World Wide Argument Web (WWAW) in the context of newly arisen Pragmatic Web paradigm. The vision is to develop the WWAW based on the Argument Interchange Format (AIF) ontology. On the one hand, we propose concept maps for presenting AIF-based arguments to the human agents. On the other hand, the argumentation schemes are formalized as planning operators in order to provide software agents with the ability to build argumentation plans.

Keywords

Critical Question Argumentation Scheme Argumentation Process Defeasible Logic Online Dispute Resolution 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    García, D.R., García, A.J., Simari, G.R.: Planning and defeasible reasoning. In: Durfee, E.H., Yokoo, M., Huhns, M.N., Shehory, O. (eds.) AAMAS, pp. 856–858 (2007)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Gerevini, A., Long, D.: Plan constraints and preferences for PDDL3. Technical report, University of Brescia, Italy (2005)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Gordon, T., Prakken, H., Walton, D.: The Carneades model of argument and burden of proof. Artificial Intelligence 171(10-15), 875–896 (2007)CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kalofonos, D., Karunatillake, N., Jennings, N.R., Norman, T.J., Reed, C., Wells, S.: Building agents that plan and argue in a social context. In: 1st International Conference on Computational Models of Argument, pp. 15–26 (2006)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Katsch, E., Rifkin, J.: Online Dispute Resolution: Resolving Conflicts in Cyberspace. John Wiley, Chichester (2001)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Modgil, S., McGinnis, J.: Towards characterising argumentation based dialogue in the argument interchange format. In: Rahwan, I., Parsons, S., Reed, C. (eds.) ArgMAS 2007. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 4946, Springer, Heidelberg (2008)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Rahwan, I., Zablith, F., Reed, C.: Laying the foundations for a world wide argument web. Artificial Intelligence 171(10-15), 897–921 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Reed, C.: Representing and applying knowledge for argumentation in a social context. AI and Society 11(1-2), 138–154 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Repenning, A., Sullivan, J.: The pragmatic web: Agent-based multimodal web interaction with no browser in sight. In: Rauterberg, M., Menozzi, M., Wesson, J. (eds.) INTERACT. IOS Press, Amsterdam (2003)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Schoop, M., de Moor, A., Dietz, J.L.G.: The pragmatic web: a manifesto. Commun. ACM 49(5), 75–76 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ioan Alfred Leţia
    • 1
  • Adrian Groza
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceTechnical University of Cluj-NapocaCluj-NapocaRomania

Personalised recommendations