skip to main content
research-article
Free Access

Implementing the argument web

Published:01 October 2013Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

Improve online public discourse by connecting opinions across blogs, editorials, and social media.

References

  1. Berners-Lee, T., Hendler, J., and Lassila, O. The Semantic Web. Scientific American 284, 5 (2001), 28--37.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  2. Bex, F., Modgil, S., Prakken, H., and Reed, C. On logical reifications of the Argument Interchange Format. Journal of Logic and Computation. Aug. 2012; doi:10.1093/logcom/exs033Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Bex, F. and Reed, C. Dialogue templates for automatic argument processing. Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications 245 (2012), 366--377.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Bizer, C., Heath, T., and Berners-Lee, T. Linked data: The story so far. International Journal on Semantic Web and Information Systems 5, 3 (2009), 1--22.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  5. Budzynska, K. and Reed, C. The structure of ad hominem dialogues. Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications 245 (2012), 410--421.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Chesñevar, C., McGinnis, J., Modgil, S., Rahwan, I., Reed, C., Simari, G., South, M., Vreeswijk, G., and Willmott, S. Towards an Argument Interchange Format. Knowledge Engineering Review 21, 4 (2009), 293--316. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. De Liddo, A., Sándor, Á., and Buckingham Shum, S. Contested collective intelligence: Rationale, technologies, and a human-machine annotation study. Computer Supported Cooperative Work 21, 4--5 (2012), 417--448. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. de Moor, A.D. and Aakhus, M. Argumentation support: From technologies to tools. Commun. ACM 49, 3 (Mar. 2006), 93--98. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Dung, P.M. On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming, and n--person games. Artificial Intelligence 77, 2 (1995), 321--357. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. Lawrence, J., Snaith, M., Bex, F.J., and Reed, C. Demonstration papers on the AIFdb, ArguBlogging, Arvina, and TOAST. Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications 245 (2012), 511--516.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Okada, A., Buckingham Shum, S.J., and Sherborne, T., Eds. Knowledge Cartography: Software Tools and Mapping Techniques. Advanced Information and Knowledge Processing. Springer, London, 2008. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Pinkwart, N., Ashley, K., Lynch, C., and Aleven, V. Evaluating an intelligent tutoring system for making legal arguments with hypotheticals. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education 19, 4 (2009), 401--424. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. Rahwan, I. Mass argumentation and the Semantic Web. Web Semantics 6, 1 (2008), 29--37. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. Rahwan, I., Zablith, F., and Reed, C. Laying the foundations for a World Wide Argument Web. Artificial Intelligence 171, 10--15 (2007), 897--921. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. Reed, C., Bex, F., Lawrence, J., and Snaith, M. DEMO: The Argument Analysis Wall. In Proceedings of Digital Futures: The Third Annual Digital Economy All Hands Conference (Aberdeen, U.K., 2012).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Snaith, M. and Reed, C. TOAST: Online ASPIC+ implementation. Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications 245 (2012), 509--510.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. van Eemeren, F.H. and Grootendorst, R. A Systematic Theory of Argumentation: The Pragma-Dialectical Approach. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K., 2004.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Walton, D.N., Reed, C.A., and Macagno, F. Argumentation Schemes. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K., 1995.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Yuan, T., Moore, D., Reed, C., Ravenscroft, A., and Maudet, N. Informal logic dialogue games in human-computer dialogue. Knowledge Engineering Review 26, 3 (2011), 159--174. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Recommendations

Comments

Login options

Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

Sign in

Full Access

  • Published in

    cover image Communications of the ACM
    Communications of the ACM  Volume 56, Issue 10
    October 2013
    93 pages
    ISSN:0001-0782
    EISSN:1557-7317
    DOI:10.1145/2507771
    Issue’s Table of Contents

    Copyright © 2013 ACM

    Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].

    Publisher

    Association for Computing Machinery

    New York, NY, United States

    Publication History

    • Published: 1 October 2013

    Permissions

    Request permissions about this article.

    Request Permissions

    Check for updates

    Qualifiers

    • research-article
    • Popular
    • Refereed

PDF Format

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader

HTML Format

View this article in HTML Format .

View HTML Format