Towards an argument interchange format

Carlos Chesñevar, Jarred McGinnis, Sanjay Modgil, Iyad Rahwan, Chris Reed, Guillermo Simari, Matthew South, Gerard Vreeswijk, Steven Willmott

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

    193 Citations (Scopus)

    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. 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.
    Original languageEnglish
    Pages (from-to)293-316
    Number of pages24
    JournalKnowledge Engineering Review
    Volume21
    Issue number4
    DOIs
    Publication statusPublished - 1 Dec 2006

    Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'Towards an argument interchange format'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

  • Cite this

    Chesñevar, C., McGinnis, J., Modgil, S., Rahwan, I., Reed, C., Simari, G., South, M., Vreeswijk, G., & Willmott, S. (2006). Towards an argument interchange format. Knowledge Engineering Review, 21(4), 293-316. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0269888906001044