Developing an Argumentation Ontology for Mailing Lists

  • Colin Fraser
  • Harry Halpin
  • Kavita E. Thomas
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4183)


Managing emails from list-servs is an open problem that we believe may be partially resolved by the introduction of a principled, argumentation-based approach towards their representation. We propose an argumentation ontology, called “Argontonaut,” which has been developed for the domain of standards-driven W3C mailing lists. We use the extensible nature of RDF to fuse an argumentation-based approach with one grounded in an issue-management system. We motivate our ontology with reference to the domain and propose future work in this area.


Argumentation Ontology Email List Visualize Argumentation Text Span Computer Support Collaborative Work 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Allen, J., Core, M.: Draft of DAMSL, Dialogue Annotation Mark-up in Several Layers (1997),
  2. 2.
    Buckingham Shum, S.: The Roots of Computer Supported Argument Visualization. In: Kirschner, P., Buckingham Shum, S., Carr, C. (eds.) Visualizing Argumentation: Software Tools for Collaborative and Educational Sense-Making. Springer, London (2003)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Levinson, S.: Pragmatics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1983)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Mann, W., Thompson, S.: Rhetorical Structure Theory. Text, vol. 8 (1988)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Mc Guinness, D., van Harmelen, F. (eds.): OWL Web Ontology Oveview. W3C Recommendation (2004),
  6. 6.
    de Moorl, A., Efimova, L.: An Argumentation Analysis of Weblog Conversations. In: Proceedings of the 9th Int’l. Conference on Perspective on Communication Modelling (2004)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    O’Keefe, D.: Two Concepts of Argument. Journal of the American Forensic Association 13 (1977)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Prud’hommeaux, E., Seaborne, A. (eds.): SPARQL Query Language. W3C Candidate Recommendation (2006),
  9. 9.
    Manola, F., Miller, E. (eds.): RDF Primer. W3C Recommendation (2004),
  10. 10.
    Tempich, C., Pinto, H.S., Sure, Y., Staab, S.: An Argumentation Ontology for DIstributed, Loosely-controlled and evolvInG Engineering processes of oNTologies (DILIGENT). In: Gómez-Pérez, A., Euzenat, J. (eds.) ESWC 2005. LNCS, vol. 3532, pp. 241–256. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Toulmin, S.: The Uses of Argument. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1958)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Vlkel, M., Krtzsch, M., Vrandecic, D., Haller, H., Studer, R.: Semantic Wikipedia. In: Proceedings of the 15th Int’l. Conference on World Wide Web (WWW) (2006)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Walton, D., Krabbe, E.: Commitment in Dialogue: Basic Concepts of Interpersonal Reasoning. SUNY Press, Albany (1995)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Winograd, T., Flores, F.: Understanding Computers and Cognition: A New Foundation for Design. Pearson Education, NJ (1986)MATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Colin Fraser
    • 1
  • Harry Halpin
    • 1
  • Kavita E. Thomas
    • 1
  1. 1.School of InformaticsUniversity of Edinburgh 

Personalised recommendations