Skip to main content Accessibility help

Representing and classifying arguments on the Semantic Web

  • Iyad Rahwan (a1) (a2), Bita Banihashemi (a3), Chris Reed (a4), Douglas Walton (a5) and Sherief Abdallah (a3) (a6)...

Until recently, little work has been dedicated to the representation and interchange of informal, semi-structured arguments of the type found in natural language prose and dialogue. To redress this, the research community recently initiated work towards an Argument Interchange Format (AIF). The AIF aims to facilitate the exchange of semi-structured arguments among different argument analysis and argumentation-support tools. In this paper, we present a Description Logic ontology for annotating arguments, based on a new reification of the AIF and founded in Walton's theory of argumentation schemes. We demonstrate how this ontology enables a new kind of automated reasoning over argument structures, which complements classical reasoning about argument acceptability. In particular, Web Ontology Language reasoning enables significantly enhanced querying of arguments through automatic scheme classifications, instance classification, inference of indirect support in chained argument structures, and inference of critical questions. We present the implementation of a pilot Web-based system for authoring and querying argument structures using the proposed ontology.

Hide All
Atkinson, K., Bench-Capon, T. J. M., McBurney, P. 2006. PARMENIDES: facilitating deliberation in democracies. Artificial Intelligence and Law 14(4), 261275.
Baader, F., Calvanese, D., McGuinness, D., Nardi, D., Patel-Schneider, P. (eds). 2003. The Description Logic Handbook. Cambridge University Press.
Baroni, P., Giacomin, M. 2007. On principle-based evaluation of extension-based argumentation semantics. Artificial Intelligence 171(10–15), 675700.
Brickley, D., Guha, R. V. 2004. RDF Vocabulary Description Language 1.0: RDF Schema. W3C Recommendation REC-rdf-schema-20040210, World Wide Web Consortium (W3C).
Chesňevar, C. I., McGinnis, J., Modgil, S., Rahwan, I., Reed, C., Simari, G., South, M., Vreeswijk, G., Willmott, S. 2006. Towards an Argument Interchange Format. The Knowledge Engineering Review 21(4), 293316.
Farnham, S., Chesley, H. R., McGhee, D. E., Kawal, R., Landau, J. 2000. Structured Online Interactions: Improving the Decision-Making of Small Discussion Groups. In Proceedings of the 2000 ACM conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work. ACM Press, 299308.
Fayyad, U., Piatetsky-shapiro, G., Smyth, P. 1996. From data mining to knowledge discovery in databases. AI Magazine 17, 3754.
Gordon, T. F., Prakken, H., Walton, D. 2007. The Carneades model of argument and burden of proof. Artificial Intelligence 171(10–15), 875896.
Hand, D. J., Mannila, H., Smyth, P. 2001. Principles of Data Mining. MIT Press.
Horrocks, I., Patel-Schneider, P. F., Bechhofer, S., Tsarkov, D. 2005. OWL rules: a proposal and prototype implementation. Journal of Web Semantics 3(1), 2340.
Kalfoglou, Y., Schorlemmer, M. 2003. Ontology mapping: the state of the art. Knowledge Engineering Review 18(1), 131.
Katzav, J., Reed, C. 2004. On argumentation schemes and the natural classification of arguments. Argumentation 18(2), 239259.
McGuinness, D. L., van Harmelen, F. 2004. OWL Web Ontology Language Overview. W3C Recommendation REC-owl-features-20040210, World Wide Web Consortium (W3C).
Perelman, C., Olbrechts-Tyteca, L. 1969. The New Rhetoric: a Treatise on Argumentation. University of Notre Dame Press.
Pollock, J. L. 1987. Defeasible reasoning. Cognitive Science 11(4), 481518.
Prakken, H., Sartor, G. 1997. Argument-based extended logic programming with defeasible priorities. Journal of Applied Non-Classical Logics 7(1), 2576.
Rahwan, I. 2008. Mass Argumentation and the Semantic Web. Journal of Web Semantics 6(1), 2937.
Rahwan, I., Banihashemi, B. 2008. Arguments in OWL: a progress report. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Computational Models of Argument (COMMA), Besnard, P., Doutre, S. & Hunter, A. (eds). IOS Press, 297310.
Rahwan, I., Zablith, F., Reed, C. 2007. Laying the foundations for a World Wide Argument Web. Artificial Intelligence 171(10–15), 897921.
Reed, C., Rowe, G. 2004. Araucaria: software for argument analysis, diagramming and representation. International Journal of AI Tools 14(3–4), 961980.
Reed, C., Walton, D. 2005. Towards a formal and implemented model of argumentation schemes in agent communication. Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems 11(2), 173188.
Shum, S. B. 2008. Cohere: towards Web 2.0 argumentation. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Computational Models of Argument (COMMA), Hunter A. (ed.). IOS Press.
Stumme, G., Hotho, A., Berendt, B. (2006). Semantic Web mining: state of the art and future directions. Web Semantics: Science, Services and Agents on the World Wide Web 4(2), 124143.
Toulmin, S. E. 1958. The Uses of Argument. Cambridge University Press.
van Eemeren, F. H., Grootendorst, R. F. 1992. Argumentation, Communication and Fallacies: A Pragma-Dialectical Perspective. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Verheij, B. 2005. An argumentation core ontology as the centerpiece of a myriad of argumentation formats. Agentlink Technical Forum Group.
Völkel, M., Krötzsch, M., Vrandečić, D., Haller, H., Studer, R. 2006. Semantic wikipedia. In Proceedings of the 15th international conference on World Wide Web, WWW 2006. ACM Press, 585–594.
Walton, D. N. 1996. Argumentation Schemes for Presumptive Reasoning. Erlbaum.
Walton, D. N. 2006. Fundamentals of Critical Argumentation. Cambridge University Press.
Walton, D., Reed, C., Macagno, F. 2008. Argumentation Schemes. Cambridge University Press.
Wells, S., Gourlay, C., Reed, C. 2009. Argument blogging. In Proceedings of the 9th International Workshop on Computational Models of Natural Argument (CMNA), Pasadena, California.
Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

The Knowledge Engineering Review
  • ISSN: 0269-8889
  • EISSN: 1469-8005
  • URL: /core/journals/knowledge-engineering-review
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *


Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed