From logic to dialectics in legal argument
ICAIL '95 Proceedings of the 5th international conference on Artificial intelligence and law
The Zeno argumentation framework
Proceedings of the 6th international conference on Artificial intelligence and law
Knowledge representation: logical, philosophical and computational foundations
Knowledge representation: logical, philosophical and computational foundations
Sweetening Ontologies with DOLCE
EKAW '02 Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Knowledge Engineering and Knowledge Management. Ontologies and the Semantic Web
Representing Scholarly Claims in Internet Digital Libraries: A Knowledge Modelling Approach
ECDL '99 Proceedings of the Third European Conference on Research and Advanced Technology for Digital Libraries
On the General Ontological Foundations of Conceptual Modeling
ER '02 Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Conceptual Modeling
A Metamodel for Part - Whole Relationships for Reasoning on Missing Parts and Reconstruction
ER '01 Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on Conceptual Modeling: Conceptual Modeling
Argumentation Semantics for Defeasible Logic
Journal of Logic and Computation
Towards an argument interchange format
The Knowledge Engineering Review
Laying the foundations for a World Wide Argument Web
Artificial Intelligence
Towards higher impact argumentation
AAAI'04 Proceedings of the 19th national conference on Artifical intelligence
ESWC'05 Proceedings of the Second European conference on The Semantic Web: research and Applications
HCOME: a tool-supported methodology for engineering living ontologies
SWDB'04 Proceedings of the Second international conference on Semantic Web and Databases
| Hi-index | 0.00 |
Modeling human argumentation should shed light on how knowledge described in information systems could be better accessed, structured, and used for real life research purposes. Current argumentation models are either not analytical enough or restricted to formal logic. For that purpose, we seek a model of human argumentation in which reasoning may not only consist of falsification or verification but more generally of strengthening or weakening hypotheses, and a way to connect this model to an ontology of the domain of discourse. We have studied examples of factual argumentation in empirical research in archaeology. Based on this and other empirical material, we propose an innovative integrated model of factual argumentation that includes evolution, composition, and revision of arguments. It makes explicit both the processes of argument-making and the states of belief at a particular point in time in a composite inference, and connects explicitly to a domain ontology, free of tacit background knowledge. We have implemented the model in a more restricted form and tested it with published archaeological examples. Future work may generalize the model to other kinds of argumentation.