Advertisement

ArgVis: Structuring Political Deliberations Using Innovative Visualisation Technologies

  • Areti Karamanou
  • Nikolaos Loutas
  • Konstantinos Tarabanis
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 6847)

Abstract

Argumentation, having its roots back to ancient years, is used in many aspects of everyday life, such as law, politics, education and decision making. Argument Visualisation Tools serve the need of visualizing natural language’s argumentations, targeting in the elimination of the traditional community sites’ disadvantages such as the lack of expressiveness. This paper presents ArgVis, an argument visualization tool, which drives the development of structured dialogues in an uncomplicated manner, without demanding from the users to hold any special technical or argumentation skills. ArgVis structures argumentations in interactive graphs that comprise: Issues, Positions, Arguments and Counterarguments. One of ArgVis’ innovations relies on the ability to integrate information with relevant, user-generated content from similar tools and sites by exporting data in a machine-readable format using the SIOC ontology.

Keywords

e-democracy argumentation deliberation argument visualization e-consultation e-participation semantics 

References

  1. 1.
    Anselm, S.: Proslogion. In: Charlesworth, M. (ed.) St. Anselm’s Proslogion. OUP, Oxford (1965)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Aristotle, Roberts, R. (translator); Ross, W.D. (ed.): Rhetoric. Random House, New York (1954)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Cartwright, D., Atkinson, K.: Using Computational Argumentation to Support E- Participation. IEEE Intelligent Systems. Special Issue on Transforming E-government and E-participation through IT 24(5), 42–52 (2009)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Descartes, R.: Discourse on Method and The Meditations, translated with an introduction by F. Sutcliffe, Harmondsworth, Penguin (1968) Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    De Moor, A., Aakhus, M.: Argumentation Support: From Technologies to Tools. Communications of the ACM 49, 93–98 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    van Eemeren, F.H., Grootendorst, R., Snoeck Henkemans, F., et al.: Fundamentals of Argumentation Theory. In: A Handbook of Historical Backgrounds and Contemporary Developments. Erlbaum, Mahwah (1996)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Joseph, S.M.: The Trivium: The Liberal Arts of Logic, Grammar, and Rhetoric. Paul Dry Books, Inc. (2002) Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Heil, J.: First-Order Logic. Jones and Bartlett Publishers, Boston (1994)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kunz, W., Rittel, H.W.J.: Issues as elements of information systems, Technical Report 0131, Institut für Grundlagen der Planung, University of Stuttgart, Stuttgart (1970) Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Lodder, A.R.: DiaLaw: Levels, Dialog Trees, Convincing Arguments. In: van den Herik, H.J., et al. (eds.) The Twelfth Conference on Legal Knowledge Based Systems, JURIX, pp. 61–72. GNI, Nijmegen (1999)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Lupia, A.: Can Online Deliberation Improve Politics? Scientific Foundations for Success. In: Davies, T., Gangadharan, S.P. (eds.) Online Deliberation: Design, Research and Practice, pp. 59–69. CSLI Publications, Stanford (2009)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Macintosh, A.: Characterizing E-Participation in Policy-Making. In: Proceedings of the 37th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Big Island, Hawaii (2004) Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Macintosh, A., Coleman, S., Lalljee, M.: E-Methods for Public Engagement: Helping Local Authorities communicate with citizens. Bristol City Council (2005), http://146.176.2.70/ITC/Documents/eMethods_guide2005.pdf
  14. 14.
    Macintosh, A., Gordon, T.F., Renton, A.: Providing Argument Support for E-Participation. Journal of Information Technology & Politics 6, 43–59 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    O’Keefe, D.: Two Concepts of Argument. Journal of the American Forensic Association 13, 121–128 (1977)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    OECD: Citizens as Partners: Information, Consultation and Public Participation in Policy-making. OECD, Paris (2001) Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    OECD: Engaging Citizens Online for Better Policy- Making. OECD, Paris (2003) Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Palvia, S.C.J., Sharma, S.S.: E-Government and E-Governance: Definitions/Domain Framework and Status around the World, Foundation of e-government, pp. 1–12 (2007) Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Saebø, Ø., Rose, J., Flak, L.S.: The shape of eParticipation: Characterizing an emerging research area. Government Information Quarterly 25(3), 400–428 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Toulmin, S.: The uses of argument. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1959)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Tambouris, E., Liotas, N., Tarabanis, K.: A Framework for Assessing eParticipation Projects and Tools. In: Proc. 40th Int. Conf. on System Sciences, Hawaii, p.90a (2007) Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Tambouris, E., Macintosh, A., Coleman, S., Wimmer, M., Vedel, T., Westholm, H., Lippa, B., Dalakiouridou, E., Parisopoulos, K., Rose, J., Aichholzer, G., Winkler, R.: Introducing eParticipation. In: Tambouris, E. (ed.) DEMO-net The Democracy Network. DEMO-net booklet series, vol. (1). University of Macedonia (2007)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Walton, D.N.: Dialogue Theory for Critical Thinking. Springer, Heidelberg (1989)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Wigmore, H.J.A.: The principles of judicial proof as given by logic, psychology, and General experience and illustrated in judicial trials, 2nd edn. Little Brown, Boston (1931); reprint 2000, William S. Hein & Co., Inc. (1913) Google Scholar

Copyright information

© IFIP International Federation for Information Processing 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Areti Karamanou
    • 1
  • Nikolaos Loutas
    • 1
    • 2
  • Konstantinos Tarabanis
    • 1
  1. 1.Information Systems LabUniversity of MacedoniaThessalonikiGreece
  2. 2.Digital Enterprise Research InstituteNational University of IrelandGalwayIreland

Personalised recommendations