Logical models of arguement formalize commonsense reasoning while taking process and computation seriously. This survey discusses the main ideas that characterize different logical models of argument. It presents the formal features of a few features of a few main approaches to the modeling of argumentation. We trace the evolution of argumentation from the mid-1980s, when argument systems emerged as an alternative to nonmonotonic formalisms based on classical logic, to the present, as argument in embedded in different complex systems for real-world applications, and allow more formal work to be done in different areas, such as AI and Law, case-based reasoning and negotiation among intelligent agents.

The theory of argumentation is a rich, interdisciplinary area of research straddling the fields of artificial intelligence, philosophy, communication studies, linguistics and psychology. In the last few years, significant progress has been made in understanding the theoretical properties of different argumentation logics. However, one major barrier to the development and practical deployment of argumentation systems is the lack of a shared, agreed notation or 'interchange format' for argumentation and arguments. In this paper, we describe a draft specification for an argument interchange format (AIF) intended for representation and exchange of data between various argumentation tools and agent-based applications. It represents a consensus 'abstract model' established by researchers across fields of argumentation, artificial intelligence and multi-agent systems 1 . In its current form, this specification is intended as a starting point for further discussion and elaboration by the community, rather than an attempt at a definitive, all-encompassing model. However, to demonstrate proof of concept, a use case scenario is briefly described. Moreover, three concrete realizations or 'reifications' of the abstract model are illustrated.

No abstract

No abstract