Representing dialogic argumentation

TY - JOUR

T1 - Representing dialogic argumentation

AU - Reed, Chris

N1 - Copyright 2008 Elsevier B.V., All rights reserved.

PY - 2006/3/1

Y1 - 2006/3/1

N2 - Dialogic argumentation is a crucial component in many computational domains, and forms a core component of argumentation theory. This paper compares two approaches to dialogue that have grown from two different disciplines; the descriptive-normative approach of applied philosophy, and the formal, implemented approach of computer science. The commonalities between the approaches are explored in developing a means for representing dialogic argumentation in a common format. This common format uses an XML-based language that views locutions as state-changing operations, drawing on an analogy with classical artificial intelligence planning. This representation is then shown to hold a number of important advantages in areas of artificial intelligence and philosophy.

AB - Dialogic argumentation is a crucial component in many computational domains, and forms a core component of argumentation theory. This paper compares two approaches to dialogue that have grown from two different disciplines; the descriptive-normative approach of applied philosophy, and the formal, implemented approach of computer science. The commonalities between the approaches are explored in developing a means for representing dialogic argumentation in a common format. This common format uses an XML-based language that views locutions as state-changing operations, drawing on an analogy with classical artificial intelligence planning. This representation is then shown to hold a number of important advantages in areas of artificial intelligence and philosophy.

UR - https://www.scopus.com/pages/publications/33644636316

U2 - 10.1016/j.knosys.2005.08.002

DO - 10.1016/j.knosys.2005.08.002

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:33644636316

SN - 0950-7051

VL - 19

SP - 22

EP - 31

JO - Knowledge-Based Systems

JF - Knowledge-Based Systems

IS - 1

ER -