Towards an argument interchange format

Abstract

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.

Clustering rule bases using ontology-based similarity measures

“…These methods are typically performed by knowledge engineers [42,43]. Domain experts usually provide templates and categories for rules or ask fixed questions to make rule elicitation easier and semi-automated [44,45].…”

Modeling the invention of a new inference rule: The case of ‘Randomized Clinical Trial’ as an argument scheme for medical science

“…As we plan to argue in the next section, a warrant-establishing argument will have a conclusion consisting of a new warrant (or possibly an endorsement of a new warrant), and data consisting partly of what would commonly be considered backing for the new warrant. To date, computational modeling of argument has mostly tackled the analysis of what Toulmin called warrant-using argument; this is most evident in the design of the Argument Interchange Format [1,5] around theory-specific inventories of argumentation schemes that are used to characterize and evaluate individual arguments. Evaluation of schemes themselves, including in the process of establishment (and possibly dis-establishment), must also be accomplished through argumentation, and must therefore be in the scope of computational modeling of argument.…”

The Argument Web: an Online Ecosystem of Tools, Systems and Services for Argumentation

“…The Argument Interchange Format (AIF) (Chesñevar et al 2006) was developed to provide a flexible-yet semantically rich-way of representing argumentation structures. The AIF was put together to try to harmonise the strong formal tradition initiated to a large degree by Dung (1995), the natural language research described at CMNA workshops since 2001, 3 and the multi-agent argumentation work that has emerged from the philosophy of Walton and Krabbe (1995), amongst others.…”