Argumentation structures that integrate dialectical and non-dialectical reasoning
- Authors: Stranieri, Andrew , Zeleznikow, John , Yearwood, John
- Date: 2001
- Type: Text , Journal article
- Relation: Knowledge Engineering Review Vol. 16, no. 4 (Dec 2001), p. 331-348
- Full Text:
- Reviewed:
- Description: Argumentation concepts have been applied to numerous knowledge engineering endeavours in recent years. For example, a variety of logics have been developed to represent argumentation in the context of a dialectical situation such as a dialogue. In contrast to the dialectical approach, argumentation has also been used to structure knowledge. This can be seen as a non-dialectical approach. The Toulmin argument structure has often been used to structure knowledge non-dialectically yet most studies that apply the Toulmin structure do not use the original structure but vary one or more components. Variations to the Toulmin structure can be understood as different ways to integrate a dialectical perspective with a non-dialectical one. Drawing the dialectical/non-dialectical distinction enables the specification of a framework called the generic actual argument model that is expressly non-dialectical. The framework enables the development of knowledge-based systems that integrate a variety of inference procedures, combine information retrieval with reasoning and facilitate automated document drafting. Furthermore, the non-dialectical framework provides the foundation for simple dialectical models. Systems based on our approach have been developed in family law, refugee law, determining eligibility for government legal aid, copyright law and e-tourism.
- Description: C1
- Description: 2003002516
The integration of narrative and argumentation for a scenario-based learning environment in law
- Authors: Stranieri, Andrew , Yearwood, John
- Date: 2005
- Type: Text , Conference paper
- Relation: Paper presented at the Tenth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, Bologna, Italy : 6th - 11th June, 2005
- Full Text: false
- Reviewed:
- Description: Narrative or story telling has long been used to structure and organise human experience. In contrast to logical models of reasoning, narrative models enable complex situations to be understood and recalled by humans readily. There is also some indication that narrative models represent the way in which jurors weigh up the veracity of legal evidence. In this work a narrative model is integrated into a logical reasoning model for the purpose of advancing a learning environment that promises to be engaging and effective. The narrative model includes a representation of the point of a story and a simple story grammar. The learning environment is designed to enable the automated generation of plausible scenarios representing a variety of family law property division cases told from the point of view of numerous characters.
- Description: E1
- Description: 2003001432
Group structured reasoning for coalescing group decisions
- Authors: Yearwood, John , Stranieri, Andrew
- Date: 2009
- Type: Text , Journal article
- Relation: Group Decision and Negotiation Vol. , no. (2009), p. 1-29
- Full Text:
- Reviewed:
- Description: In this paper we present the notion of structured reasoning through a model, called the Generic/Actual Argument Model (GAAM). The model which has been used as a computational representation for machine modelling of reasoning and for hybrid combinations of human and machine reasoning can be used as a coalescent framework for decision making. Whilst the notion of structuring reasoning is not new, structured reasoning is advanced as a technique where group consensus on reasoning structures at various levels can be used to facilitate the comprehension of complex reasoning particularly where there are multiple perspectives. For an issue, the approach provides a scaffolding structure for cognitive co-operation and a normative reasoning structure against which group participants can identify points of difference and points in common as well as the nature of the differences and similarities. Intra-group transparency characterized by the ability to recognise points in common and understand the nature of differences is important to the process of coalescing group decisions that carry maximum group support. © 2009 Springer Science+Business Media B.V.
The generic/actual argument model of practical reasoning
- Authors: Yearwood, John , Stranieri, Andrew
- Date: 2006
- Type: Text , Journal article
- Relation: Decision Support Systems Vol. 41, no. 2 (2006), p. 358-379
- Full Text: false
- Reviewed:
- Description: In this paper, we present a model of reasoning called the generic/actual argument model (GAAM). Reasoning within a discursive community can be represented with this model so that participant claims can be accommodated without recourse to combative metaphors such as attack or defeat. The model facilitates the comprehension of complex reasoning for humans as well as being a computational representation for machine modelling of reasoning. As such, the model naturally integrates machine inferences with human. The model has been the basis for the development of practical systems to support reasoning and deliberation in areas of law and organizational decision making. Here, we present a formal description of the model and identify some of its characteristics. © 2004 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
- Description: C1
- Description: 2003001594
Generic arguments : A framework for supporting online deliberative discourse
- Authors: Yearwood, John , Stranieri, Andrew
- Date: 2002
- Type: Text , Conference paper
- Relation: Paper presented at the Thirteenth Australasian Conference on Information Systems, Melbourne : 4th December, 2002
- Full Text:
- Reviewed:
- Description: In this paper we propose a framework based on argumentation that can be used to support deliberative discourse on line. Online communities have several distinct advantages as very open forums but they also have some deep disadvantages. We argue that the proposed framework and web application GAAMtalk permits and encourages the positive elements of online deliberation that will enhance discussions.
- Description: E1
- Description: 2003000114