Advertisement

Towards a Structured Online Consultation Tool

  • Adam Wyner
  • Katie Atkinson
  • Trevor Bench-Capon
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 6847)

Abstract

The Structured Online Consultation tool (SCT) is a component tool in the IMPACT Project which is used to construct and present detailed surveys that solicit feedback from the public concerning issues in public policy. The tool is underwritten by a computational model of argumentation, incorporating fine-grained, interconnected argumentation schemes. While the public responds to easy to understand questions, the answers can be assimilated into a structured framework for analytic purposes, supporting automated reasoning about arguments.

Keywords

policy-making online consultation argumentation 

References

  1. 1.
    Atkinson, K., Bench-Capon, T.J.M.: Practical reasoning as presumptive argumentation using action based alternating transition systems. Artificial Intelligence 171(10-15), 855–874 (2007)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bench-Capon, T.J.: Knowledge based systems applied to law: A framework for discussion. In: Bench-Capon, T.J. (ed.) Knowledge Based Systems and Legal Applications, pp. 329–342. Academic Press, London (1991)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Birkland, T.A.: An Introduction to the Policy Process: Theories, Concepts, and Models of Public Policy Making. M.E. Sharpe, USA (2010)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cartwright, D.: Digital Decision-Making: Using Computational Argumentation to Support Democratic Processes. Ph.D. thesis, University of Liverpool (2011)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Dung, P.M.: On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games. Artificial Intelligence 77(2), 321–358 (1995)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Gordon, T., Prakken, H., Walton, D.: The carneades model of argument and burden of proof. Artificial Intelligence 171, 875–896 (2007)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Macintosh, A., Gordon, T., Renton, A.: Providing argument support for eparticipation. Journal of Information, Technology & Politics 6(1), 43–59 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Prakken, H.: An abstract framework for argumentation with structure arguments. Argument and Computation 1(2), 93–124 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Prakken, H.: On the nature of argument schemes. In: Reed, C., Tindale, C. (eds.) Dialectics, Dialogue and Argumentation. An Examination of Douglas Walton’s Theories of Reasoning and Argument, pp. 167–185. College Publications, London (2010)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Walton, D., Reed, C., Macagno, F.: Argumentation Schemes. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2008)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Wyner, A., Bench-Capon, T.: Argument schemes for legal case-based reasoning. In: Lodder, A.R., Mommers, L. (eds.) Legal Knowledge and Information Systems, JURIX 2007, pp. 139–149. IOS Press, Amsterdam (2007)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© IFIP International Federation for Information Processing 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Adam Wyner
    • 1
  • Katie Atkinson
    • 1
  • Trevor Bench-Capon
    • 1
  1. 1.University of LiverpoolLiverpoolUK

Personalised recommendations