A review of argumentation for the Social Semantic Web

Semantic Web

Volumn 4, Issue 2, 2013, Pages 159-218

  Schneider, Jodi ^a   Groza, Tudor ^a,b   Passant, Alexandre ^a  

^a NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF IRELAND   (Ireland)

^b UNIVERSITY OF QUEENSLAND   (Australia)

Author keywords

Argumentation; Ontologies; Semantic Web; Social Web

Indexed keywords

EID: 84874908140     PISSN: 15700844     EISSN: 22104968     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3233/SW-2012-0073     Document Type: Review

References (212)

1. RDF Vocabulary Description Language 1.0: RDF Schema. W3C Recommendation 10 February 2004, World Wide Web Consortium, 2004. http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf- schema/.
2. SPARQL query language for RDF. W3C Recommendation 15 January 2008, World Wide Web Consortium, 2008.http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-sparql-query.
3. OWL 2 Web Ontology Language: Document Overview. W3C Recommendation 27 October 2009, World Wide Web Consortium, 2009. http://www.w3.org/TR/owl2- overview/.
4. Mark Aakhus. Pragmatic Web as communication design practice. In PragWeb 2006: Proceedings of the First International Conference on the Pragmatic Web 21-23 September 2006 Stuttgart, Germany. Ges. für Informatik, Bonn, 2006.
5. Mark Aakhus and Miriam Greenfeld Benovitz. Argument reconstruction and socio-technical facilitation of large scale argumentation. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on the Pragmatic Web: Innovating the Interactive Society, pages 77-81, 2008.
6. Ágnes Sándor. Using the author's comments for knowledge discovery. In Semaine de la connaissance, Atelier texte et connaissance, Nantes, France, 2006.
7. Vincent Aleven and Kevin D. Ashley. Evaluating a learning environment for case-based argumentation skills. In Proceedings of the 6th international conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, ICAIL 1997, pages 170-179, New York, NY, USA, 1997.
8. Pranav Anand, Joseph King, Jordan Boyd-Graber, Earl Wagner, Craig Martell, Doug Oard, and Philip Resnik. Believe me-we can do this! Annotating persuasive acts in blog text. In AAAI Workshop on Computational Models of Natural Argument at the Twenty-Fifth AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 2011.
9. M.A. Angrosh, Stephen Cranefield, and Nigel Stanger. Ontology-based modelling of related work sections in research articles: Using CRFs for developing semantic data based information retrieval systems. In iSemantics 2010, 2010.
10. Anupriya Ankolekar, Markus Krötzsch, Duc Thanh Tran, and Denny Vrandecic. The two cultures: Mashing upWeb 2.0 and the Semantic Web. Journal of Web Semantics, 6(1):70-75, 2008.
11. Kevin D. Ashley. Modeling legal arguments: Reasoning with cases and hypotheticals. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, USA, 1991.
12. Kevin D. Ashley and Edwina L. Rissland. But, see, accord: Generating blue book citations in HYPO. In Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and law, pages 67-74, 1987.
13. Katie Atkinson, Trevor J. M. Bench-Capon, and Doug Walton. Distinctive features of persuasion and deliberation dialogues. Argument & Computation, 2012. in press.
14. Trevor J. M. Bench-Capon. Specification and implementation of Toulmin dialogue game. In Proceedings of JURIX, volume 98, pages 5-20, 1998.
15. Trevor J. M. Bench-Capon. Persuasion in practical argument using Value-based Argumentation Frameworks. Journal of Logic and Computation, 13(3):429-448, 2003.
16. Trevor J. M. Bench-Capon and Edwina L. Rissland. Back to the future: Dimensions revisited. In Proceedings of JURIX 2001, 2001.
17. Neil Benn, Simon Buckingham Shum, John Domingue, and Clara Mancini. Ontological foundations for scholarly debate mapping technology. In Second International Conference on Computational Models of Argument (COMMA '08), May 2008.
18. Tim Berners-Lee. Linked Data. Design issues for the world wide web, World Wide Web Consortium, 2006. http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/LinkedData.html.
19. Tim Berners-Lee and Mark Fischetti. Weaving the Web: The Original Design and Ultimate Destiny of the World Wide Web by its Inventor. Harper Collins Publishers, New York, 1999.
20. Tim Berners-Lee, James A. Hendler, and Ora Lassila. The Semantic Web. Scientific American, 284(5):34-43, 2001.
21. David Alan Black. Introducing HyperNews. Linux Journal, (27), July 1996.
22. Elizabeth Black and Anthony Hunter. Using enthymemes in an inquiry dialogue system. In Proceedings of the 7th international joint conference on Autonomous agents and multiagent systems-Volume 1, pages 437-444. International Foundation for Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, 2008.
23. Jim Blythe and Yolanda Gil. Incremental formalization of document annotations through ontology-based paraphrasing. In Proceedings of the 13th International Conference onWorld Wide Web, pages 455-461, 2004.
24. Stefano Bocconi, Frank Nack, and Lynda Hardman. Supporting the generation of argument structure within video sequences. In Proceedings of the 16th ACM conference on Hypertext and hypermedia, pages 75-84, 2005.
25. David Braybrooke. Introduction to special issue of argumentation originating in a conference at The University of Texas at Austin. Argumentation, 17(4):361-363, 2003.
26. John G. Breslin, Andreas Harth, Uldis Bojars, and Stefan Decker. Towards Semantically-Interlinked Online Communities. In The Semantic Web: Research and Applications, Proceedings of the second European Semantic Web Conference (ESWC '05), number 3532 in LNCS, pages 500-514. Springer, 2005.
27. John G. Breslin, Alexandre Passant, and Stefan Decker. The Social Semantic Web. Springer, 2009.
28. Guillaume Cabanac, Max Chevalier, Claude Chrisment, and Christine Julien. Social validation of collective annotations: Definition and experiment. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 61(2):271-287, 2010.
29. Daniela V. Carbogim, David Robertson, and John Lee. Argument-based applications to knowledge engineering. The Knowledge Engineering Review, 15(2):119-149, 2000.
30. Jeremy J. Carroll, Christian Bizer, Patrick Hayes, and Patrick Stickler. Named graphs, provenance and trust. In Proceedings of the 14th International Conference onWorldWideWeb, 2004.
31. Jeremy J. Carroll, Ian Dickinson, Chris Dollin, Dave Reynolds, Andy Seaborne, and Kevin Wilkinson. Jena. In Proceedings of the 13th international World Wide Web conference - Alternate track papers & posters - WWW Alt. '04, page 74, 2004.
32. Dan Cartwright and Katie Atkinson. Political engagement through tools for argumentation. In Computational models of argument: Proceedings of COMMA 2008, pages 116-127. IOS Press, 2008.
33. Dan Cartwright and Katie Atkinson. Using computational argumentation to support e-participation. IEEE Intelligent Systems, 24(5):42-52, 2009.
34. Dan Cartwright, Katie Atkinson, and Trevor Bench-Capon. Supporting argument in e-democracy. In Electronic Government: Third International Electronic Democracy (EDEM 2009), pages 151-160, 2009.
35. Daniel Robert Cartwright. Digital Decision-Making: Using Computational Argumentation to Support Democratic Processes. PhD thesis, University of Liverpool, 6 2011.
36. Alexander Garcia Castro, Angela Norena, Andres Betancourt, and Mark A. Ragan. Cognitive support for an argumentative structure during the ontology development process. In Proceedings of the 9th International Protégé Conference, Stanford, California, July 2006.
37. Andy R. Cavagnetto. Argument to foster scientific literacy. Review of Educational Research, 80(3):336-371, 2010.
38. Steve Cayzer. Semantic blogging and decentralized knowledge management. Communications of the ACM, 47(12):47- 52, 2004.
39. Hsinchun Chen. AI, e-government, and politics 2.0. IEEE Intelligent Systems, 24(5):64-86, 2009.
40. Timothy Chklovski, Yolanda Gil, Varun Ratnakar, and John Lee. TRELLIS: supporting decision making via argumentation in the Semantic Web. In Proceedings of the Second International Semantic Web Conference, October 2003.
41. Timothy Chklovski, Varun Ratnakar, and Yolanda Gil. User interfaces with Semi-Formal representations: a study of designing argumentation structures. In Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces, pages 130-136, 2005.
42. Paolo Ciccarese. Scientific Discourse Relationships Ontology Specification. Technical report, Massachusetts General Hospital, December 2008.
43. Paolo Ciccarese, Marco Ocana, Sudeshna Das, and Tim Clark. AO: an open Annotation Ontology for science on the Web. In Bio-Ontologies 2010, 2010.
44. Paolo Ciccarese, Elizabeth Wu, Gwen Wong, Marco Ocana, June Kinoshita, Alan Ruttenberg, and Tim Clark. The SWAN biomedical discourse ontology. Journal of Biomedical Informatics, 41(5):739-751, October 2008.
45. Chip Cleary and Ray Bareiss. Practical methods for automatically generating typed links. In Proceedings of the Seventh ACM Conference on Hypertext, pages 31-41, 1996.
46. Juri Luca De Coi, Norbert E Fuchs, Kaarel Kaljurand, and Tobias Kuhn. Controlled english for reasoning on the Semantic Web. In Semantic Techniques for the Web-The REWERSE Perspective, volume 5500 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 276-308. Springer, 2009.
47. Jeffrey Conklin. Dialogue Mapping: Building Shared Understanding of Wicked Problems. John Wiley and Sons, Ltd., 2005.
48. Sudeshna Das, Michael Rogan, Holli Kawadler, Samuel Brin, Stéphane Corlosquet, and Tim Clark. PD Online: A case study in scientific collaboration on the Web. In Workshop on the Future of the Web for Collaborative Science, 19th International World Wide Web Conference, 2010.
49. Aldo de Moor and Mark Aakhus. Argumentation support: From technologies to tools. Communications of the ACM, 49(3):93-98, 2006.
50. Nicholas Diakopoulos, Sergio Goldenberg, and Irfan Essa. Videolyzer: quality analysis of online informational video for bloggers and journalists. In Proceedings of the 27th International Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pages 799-808, 2009.
51. Phan Minh Dung. On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games. Artificial Intelligence, 77(2):321- 357, 1995.
52. Paul E. Dunne, Sylvie Doutre, and Trevor J. M. Bench-Capon. Discovering inconsistency through examination dialogues. In Leslie Pack Kaelbling and Alessandro Saffiotti, editors, IJCAI, pages 1680-1681. Professional Book Center, 2005.
53. Rob Ennals, Dan Byler, John Mark Agosta, and Barboara Rosario. What is disputed on the Web? In WWW 2010, 2010.
54. Rob Ennals, Beth Trushkowsky, and John Mark Agosta. Highlighting disputed claims on theWeb. In WICOW 2010 at WWW 2010, 2010.
55. Siamak Faridani, Ephrat Bitton, Kimiko Ryokai, and Ken Goldberg. Opinion Space: A scalable tool for browsing online comments. In Proceedings of the 28th International Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI '10, pages 1175-1184, 2010.
56. Gerhard Fischer, Andreas C. Lemke, Raymond McCall, and Anders I. Morch. Making argumentation serve design. Human-Computer Interaction, 6(3):393-419, 1991.
57. James S. Fishkin. Democracy and Deliberation: New Directions for Democratic Reform. Yale University Press, 1991.
58. Norbert E. Fuchs, Kaarel Kaljurand, and Gerold Schneider. Attempto controlled english meets the challenges of knowledge representation, reasoning, interoperability and user interfaces. In FLAIRS Conference, pages 664-669, 2006.
59. Marco Aurélio Gerosa, Mariano Gomes Pimentel, Hugo Fuks, and Carlos Lucena. Analyzing discourse structure to coordinate educational forums. In Intelligent Tutoring Systems 2004, number 3220 in LNCS, pages 23-36. Springer-Verlag, 2004.
60. Yolanda Gil and Varun Ratnakar. TRELLIS: An Interactive Tool for Capturing Information Analysis and Decision Making. Internal Project Report, USC Information Sciences Institute, 2001. http://www.isi.edu/expect/web/trellis/ Trellis-8-01.pdf.
61. Yolanda Gil and Varun Ratnakar. Trusting information sources one citizen at a time. In Proceedings of the First International Conference on The Semantic Web, pages 162-176. Springer-Verlag, 2002.
62. Thomas F. Gordon, Henry Prakken, and DouglasWalton. The Carneades model of argument and burden of proof. Artificial Intelligence, 171(10-15):875-896, July 2007.
63. Wayne S. Grennan. Informal Logic: Issues and Techniques. McGill Queens University Press, Montreal, Quebec, 1997.
64. H.P. Grice. Logic and conversation. In Syntax and semantics, Vol.3, pages 41-58, 1975.
65. Leo Groarke. Informal logic. In Edward N. Zalta, editor, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Spring 2012 edition, 2012.
66. Claire Grover, Ben Hachey, and Chris Korycinski. Summarising legal texts: Sentential tense and argumentative roles. In Proceedings of the Text Summarization Workshop at HLTNAACL 2003, Human Language Technology Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics Volume 5, pages 33-40, 2003.
67. Tudor Groza, Siegfried Handschuh, John G. Breslin, and Stefan Decker. An abstract framework for modeling argumentation in virtual communities. International Journal of Virtual Communities and Social Networking, 1:35-47, 2009.
68. Tudor Groza, Siegfried Handschuh, Knud Möller, and Stefan Decker. SALT - Semantically Annotated LaTeX for scientific publications. In The Semantic Web: Research and Applications, Proceedings of ESWC 2007, LNCS, pages 518-532. Springer, 2007.
69. Thomas R. Gruber. Towards principles for the design of ontologies used for knowledge sharing. International Journal Human-Computer Studies, 43(5-6):907-928, 1995.
70. Thomas R. Gruber. Collective knowledge systems: Where the Social Web meets the Semantic Web. Journal of Web Semantics, 6(1):4-13, 2008.
71. Ali Gürkan, Luca Iandoli, Mark Klein, and Giuseppe Zollo. Mediating debate through on-line large-scale argumentation: Evidence from the field. Information Sciences, 180(19):3686-3702, 2010.
72. Karl Gyllstrom and Marie-Francine Moens. Clash of the typings: finding controversies and children's topics within queries. In Proceedings of the 33rd European conference on Advances in information retrieval, ECIR'11, pages 80-91. Springer-Verlag, 2011.
73. Stella Heras. Case-Based Argumentation in Agent Societies. PhD thesis, Universitat Politècnica de València, 2011.
74. Stella Heras, Katie Atkinson, Vicente Botti, Floriana Grasso, Vicente Juliana, and Peter McBurney. Applying argumentation to enhance dialogues in social networks. In Proceedings of the IJCAI Workshop on Computational Models of Natural Argument (CMNA), 2010.
75. Stella Heras, Katie Atkinson, Vicente Botti, Floriana Grasso, Vicente Juliana, and Peter McBurney. How argumentation can enhance dialogues in social networks. In Computational Models of Argument - Proceedings of COMMA 2010, number 216 in Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications, pages 267-274. IOS Press, 2010.
76. Stella Heras, Vicente Botti, and Vicente Juliana. On a Computational Argumentation Framework for Agent Societies, volume 6614 of LNCS, pages 123-140. Springer-Verlag New York Inc, 2011.
77. Michael Hoffmann. Logical Argument Mapping (LAM) - A Manual. Working paper, Georgia Tech, 2011. http://www.spp.gatech.edu/faculty/workingpapers/wp50. pdf.
78. Michael H. G. Hoffmann. Logical argument mapping: A cognitive-change- based method for building common ground. In Proceedings of the 2nd international conference on Pragmatic Web, ICPW '07, pages 41-47, 2007.
79. Ken Hyland. Metadiscourse. Continuum, 1st edition, 2005.
80. Joshua E. Introne. Adaptive Mediation in Groupware. PhD thesis, Brandeis University, 2008.
81. Joshua E. Introne. Supporting group decisions by mediating deliberation to improve information pooling. In Proceedings of the ACM 2009 International Conference on Supporting group work - GROUP '09, page 189, 2009.
82. Alex P. J. Jarczyk, Peter Löffler, and Frank M. Shipman III. Design rationale for software engineering: a survey. In Proceedings of the Twenty-Fifth Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, 1992, volume ii, pages 577-586, 1992.
83. Minwoo Jeong, Chin-Yew Lin, and Gary Geunbae Lee. Semisupervised speech act recognition in emails and forums. In EMNLP: Proceedings of the Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 1250-1259, 2009.
84. David R. Karger and Dennis Quan. What would it mean to blog on the Semantic Web? In The Semantic Web - ISWC 2004, pages 214-228. Springer, 2004.
85. Joel Katzav and Chris Reed. On argumentation schemes and the natural classification of arguments. Argumentation, 18(2):239-259, June 2004.
86. Joel Katzav, Chris Reed, and Glenn Rowe. Argument research corpus. In Proceedings of the 2003 Conference on Practical Applications in Language and Computers, pages 229-239. Peter Lang, 2003.
87. Paul A. Kirschner, Simon J. Buckingham Shum, and Chad S. Carr. Visualizing Argumentation: Software tools for collaborative and educational sense-making. Springer, 1 edition, 2003.
88. Mark Klein. Achieving collective intelligence via large-scale on-line argumentation. Technical Report Research Paper No. 4647-07, CCI Working Paper No. 2007-001, MIT Sloan School of Management, April.
89. Mark Klein. The MIT Collaboratorium: Enabling Effective Large-Scale Deliberation for Complex Problems. SSRN eLibrary, (Research Paper No. 4679-08), December 2007.
90. Graham Klyne and Jeremy J. Carroll. Resource Description Framework (RDF): Concepts and abstract syntax. W3C Recommendation 10 February 2004, World Wide Web Consortium, 2004. http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-concepts/.
91. Alistair Knott and Ted Sanders. The classification of coherence relations and their linguistic markers: An exploration of two languages. Journal of Pragmatics, 30:135-175, 1998.
92. Kepa Korta and John Perry. Pragmatics. In Edward N. Zalta, editor, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Summer 2011 edition, 2011.
93. Travis Kriplean, Jonathan Morgan, Deen Freelon, Alan Borning, and Lance Bennett. Supporting reflective public thought with ConsiderIt. In Proceedings of the ACM 2012 conference on Computer Supported CooperativeWork, CSCW '12, pages 265-274, New York, NY, USA, 2012.
94. Travis Kriplean, Jonathan T. Morgan, Deen Freelon, Alan Borning, and Lance Bennett. ConsiderIt: improving structured public deliberation. In Proceedings of the 2011 annual conference extended abstracts on Human factors in computing systems, CHI EA '11, page 1831-1836, 2011.
95. Markus Krötzsch, Denny Vrandečić, Max Völkel, Heiko Haller, and Rudi Studer. SemanticWikipedia. Journal of Web Semantics, 5(4):251-261, 2007.
96. Werner Kunz and Horst W.J. Rittel. Issues as elements of information systems. Working Paper 131, Center for Planning and Development Research, University of California at Berkeley, Berkeley, CA, 1970.
97. Christoph Lange. Semantic Web Collaboration on Semiformal Mathematical Knowledge. Ph.D., Jacobs University, School of Engineering and Science, Bremen, Germany, Germany, 2010. https://svn.kwarc.info/repos/swim/doc/phd/phd.pdf.
98. Christoph Lange, Uldis Bojars, Tudor Groza, John G. Breslin, and Siegfried Handschuh. Expressing argumentative discussions in social media sites. In Proceedings of the ISWC2008 Workshop on Social Data on the Web (SDoW2008), October 2008.
99. Christoph Lange, Tuukka Hastrup, and Stephane Corlosquet. Arguing on issues with mathematical knowledge items in a semantic wiki. In LWA: Lernen, Wissensentdeckung und Adaptivität, volume 448 of Technical Report, pages 41-48. Department of Computer Science, University of Würzburg, Germany, 2008.
100. Ioan Alfred Letia and Adrian Groza. Contextual extension with concept maps in the Argument Interchange Format. In Argumentation in Multi-Agent Systems, volume 5384. Springer, 2009.
101. Anna De Liddo and S. Buckingham Shum. Cohere: A prototype for contested collective intelligence. In Collective Intelligence In Organizations - Toward a Research Agenda, 2010.
102. Claudia Lópea, Pablo Inostroza, Luiz Marcio Cysneiros, and Hernán Astudillo. Visualization and comparison of architecture rationale with Semantic Web technologies. The Journal of Systems and Software, 82(8):1198-1210, 2009.
103. Rui Pedro Lourenço and Joao Paulo Costa. A note on democracy and Group Support Systems concepts. In CISTI: 2010 5th Iberian Conference on Information Systems and Technologies, pages 1-6, 2010.
104. John Lowrance, Ian Harrison, Andres Rodriguez, Eric Yeh, Tom Boyce, Janet Murdock, Jerome Thomere, and Ken Murray. Template-based structured argumentation. In Knowledge Cartography, Advanced Information and Knowledge Processing, pages 307-334. Springer, 2008.
105. John D. Lowrance. Graphical manipulation of evidence in structured arguments. Law, probability and risk, 6(1-4):225, 2007.
106. Ann Macintosh. Moving toward "Intelligent" policy development? IEEE Intelligent Systems, 24(5):79-82, 2011.
107. Ann Macintosh, Thomas F. Gordon, and Alastair Renton. Providing argument support for e-participation. Journal of Information Technology & Politics, 6(1):43-59, 2009.
108. Clara Mancini and Simon Buckingham shum. Cognitive Coherence Relations and hypertext: from cinematic patterns to scholarly discourse. In Proceedings of the 12th ACM conference on Hypertext and Hypermedia, pages 165-174, Arhus, Denmark, 2001.
109. Clara Mancini and Simon J. Buckingham Shum. Modelling discourse in contested domains: A semiotic and cognitive framework. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 64(11):1154-1171, November 2006.
110. William C. Mann and Sandra A. Thompson. Rhetorical Structure Theory: Toward a functional theory of text organization. Text, 8(3):243-281, 1988.
111. Daniel Marcu. Building up rhetorical structure trees. In AAAI- 96 Proceedings, 1996.
112. Daniel Marcu. The Theory and Practice of Discourse Parsing and Summarization. The MIT Press, November 2000.
113. Peter McBurney and Simon Parsons. Dialogue games for agent argumentation. Argumentation in Artificial Intelligence, pages 261-280, 2009.
114. Helena M. Mentis, Paula M. Bach, Blaine Hoffman, Mary Beth Rosson, and John M. Carroll. Development of decision rationale in complex group decision making. In Proceedings of the 27th International Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pages 1341-1350, 2009.
115. Raquel Mochales and Marie-Francine F. Moens. Argumentation mining. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 19(1):1-22, 2011.
116. Raquel Mochales Palau. Automatic detection and classification of argumentation in a legal case. PhD thesis, K.U.Leuven, Faculty of Engineering Science, July 2011. Moens, Marie-Francine and De Schreye, Daniel (supervisors).
117. Raquel Mochales-Palau and Marie-Francine Moens. Automatic argumentation detection and its role in law and the Semantic Web. In Law, Ontologies and the Semantic Web - Channelling the Legal Information Flood, volume 188 of Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications, pages 115-129. IOS Press, 2009.
118. Sanjay Modgil and Jarred McGinnis. Towards characterising argumentation based dialogue in the Argument Interchange Format. In Argumentation in Multi-Agent Systems, volume 4946. Springer, 2008.
119. Bernard Moulin, Hengameh Irandoust, Micheline Bélanger, and Gaëlle Desbordes. Explanation and argumentation capabilities: Towards the creation of more persuasive agents. Artificial Intelligence Review, 17:169-222, 2002.
120. Carlos Ches nevar, Jarred McGinnis, Sanjay Modgil, Iyad Rahwan, Chris Reed, Guillermo Simari, Matthew South, Gerard Vreeswijk, and Steven Willmott. Towards an Argument Interchange Format. The Knowledge Engineering Review, 21(4):293-316, 2006.
121. Susan E. Newman and Catherine C. Marshall. Pushing Toulmin too far: Learning from an argument representation scheme. Technical Report Technical Report SSL-92-45, Xerox PARC, 1992. http://www.csdl.tamu.edu/marshall/toulmin. pdf.
122. Alexandra Okada, Simon J. Buckingham Shum, and Tony Sherborne. Knowledge Cartography: Software Tools and Mapping Techniques. Springer, 2008.
123. Tim O'Reilly. What IsWeb 2.0: Design Patterns and Business Models for the Next Generation of Software, 30 September 2005. http://www.oreillynet.com/lpt/ a/6228.
124. Bo Pang and Lillian Lee. Opinion mining and sentiment analysis. Foundations and Trends in Information Retrieval, 2(1-2):1-135, 2008.
125. Jack Park. Boundary infrastructures for IBIS federation: Design rationale, implementation, and evaluation. Ph.D. Thesis Proposal KMI-10-01, The Open University, Milton Keyes, 2010.
126. Philippe Pasquier, Iyad Rahwan, Frank Dignum, and Liz Sonenberg. Argumentation and persuasion in the cognitive coherence theory. In Proceedings of the 2006 conference on Computational Models of Argument: Proceedings of COMMA 2006, pages 223-234, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, The Netherlands, 2006. IOS Press.
127. Alexandre Passant. Semantic Web Technologies for Enterprise 2.0. IOS Press, 2010.
128. Alexandre Passant, Paolo Ciccarese, John G. Breslin, and Tim Clark. SWAN/SIOC: aligning scientific discourse representation and social semantics. In Proceedings of the Workshop on Semantic Web Applications in Scientific Discourse (SWASD 2009), at (ISWC-2009), volume 523. CEUR-WS.org, 2009.
129. Chaim Perelman and Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca. The New Rhetoric: A Treatise on Argumentation. University of Notre Dame Press, June 1969.
130. Silvio Peroni and David Shotton. Fabio and cito: Ontologies for describing bibliographic resources and citations. IEEE Intelligent Systems, 2011. Preprint.
131. H. Sofia Pinto, Christoph Tempich, and Steffen Staab. DILIGENT: towards a fine-grained methodology for DIstributed, loosely-controlled and evolvInG engingeering of oNTologies. In Proceedings of the 16th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence (ECAI 2004), August 22nd - 27th, pages 393- 397, August 2004.
132. Henry Prakken. Formal systems for persuasion dialogue. The Knowledge Engineering Review, 21(2):163-188, 2006.
133. ESTRELLA Project. Deliverable 1.4: OWL ontology of basic legal concepts (LKIF-Core). Deliverable IST-2004-027655, University of Amsterdam, January 2007.
134. Iyad Rahwan. Mass argumentation and the Semantic Web. Web Semantics: Science, Services and Agents on the World Wide Web, 6(1):29-37, February 2008.
135. Iyad Rahwan and Bita Banihashemi. Arguments in OWL: a progress report. In Computational models of argument: Proceedings of COMMA 2008, pages 297-310. IOS Press, 2008.
136. Iyad Rahwan, Bita Banihashemi, Chris Reed, Douglas Walton, and Sherief Abdallah. Representing and classifying arguments on the semantic web. The Knowledge Engineering Review, 26(04):487-511, 12 2011.
137. Iyad Rahwan and Guillermo Simari. Argumentation in Artificial Intelligence. Springer, 2009.
138. Iyad Rahwan, Fouad Zablith, and Chris Reed. Laying the foundations for a World Wide Argument Web. Artificial Intelligence, 171(10-15):897-921, July 2007.
139. Iyad Rahwan, Fouad Zablith, and Chris Reed. Towards large scale argumentation support on the Semantic Web. In Proceedings of the 22nd national conference on Artificial Intelligence - Volume 2, pages 1446-1451. AAAI Press, 2007.
140. Andrew Ravenscroft, Simon Wells, Musbah Sagar, and Chris Reed. Mapping persuasive dialogue games onto argument tation structures. In Symposium on Persuasive Technology & Digital Behaviour Intervention at AISB: Artificial Intelligence and Simulation of Behaviour, April 2009.
141. Chris Reed. Representing dialogic argumentation. Knowledge-Based Systems, 19(1):22-31, March 2006.
142. Chris Reed and Glenn Rowe. Araucaria: Software for argument analysis, diagramming and representation. International Journal on Artificial Intelligence Tools, 13(4):961-979, 2004.
143. Chris Reed and Christopher W. Tindale. Dialectics, dialogue and argumentation: An examination of Douglas Walton's theories of reasoning and argument. College Publications, London, 2010.
144. Chris Reed, Douglas Walton, and Fabrizio Macagno. Argument diagramming in logic, law and Artificial Intelligence. The Knowledge Engineering Review, 22(01):87-109, 2007.
145. Chris Reed and SimonWells. Dialogical argument as an interface to complex debates. IEEE Intelligent Systems, 22(6):60- 65, 2007.
146. Chris Reed, Simon Wells, Katarzyna Budzynska, and Joseph Devereux. Building arguments with argumentation: the role of illocutionary force in computation models of argument. In Computational Models of Argument - Proceedings of COMMA 2010, number 216 in Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications, pages 415-426. IOS Press, 2010.
147. Chris Reed, Simon Wells, Joseph Devereux, and Glenn Rowe. AIF+: dialogue in the Argument Interchange Format. In Computational models of argument: Proceedings of COMMA 2008, pages 311-323. IOS Press, 2008.
148. Alan Ritter, Colin Cherry, and Bill Dolan. Unsupervised modeling of Twitter conversations. In Proceedings of Human Language Technologies: The 11th Annual Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 2010.
149. Alan Ritter, Doug Downey, Stephen Soderland, and Oren Etzioni. It's a contradiction - no, it's not: a case study using functional relations. In EMNLP:Proceedings of the Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 11-20. Association for Computational Linguistics, 2008.
150. Glenn W. A. Rowe, Chris A. Reed, and Joel Katzav. Araucaria: Marking up argument. In European Conference on Computing and Philosophy, 2003.
151. Matthias Samwald and Klaus-Peter Adlassnig. The bio-zen plus ontology. Applied Ontology, 3(4):213-217, 2008.
152. Ted J.M. Sanders,Wilbert P.M. Spooren, and Leo Noordman. Towards a taxonomy of coherence relations. Discourse Processes, 15:1-35, 1992.
153. Oliver Scheuer, Frank Loll, Niels Pinkwart, and Bruce McLaren. Computer-supported argumentation: A review of the state of the art. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 5(1):43-102, 2010.
154. David C. Schneider, Christian Voigt, and Gregor Betz. ArguNet-a software tool for collaborative argumentation analysis and research. In Proceedings of the IJCAI Workshop on Computational Models of Natural Argument (CMNA), 2007.
155. Jodi Schneider, Alexandre Passant, and Stefan Decker. Deletion discussions in Wikipedia: Decision factors and outcomes. In 8th International Symposium on Wikis and Open Collaboration, WikiSym 2012, 2012.
156. Daniel Schober, James Malone, and Robert Stevens. Practical experiences in concurrent, collaborative ontology building using Collaborative Protégé. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Biomedical Ontology, Buffalo, NY, 2009. Nature Precedings. http://precedings. nature.com/documents/3517/version/2.
157. Wolfgang Schuler and John B. Smith. Author's argumentation assistant (AAA): a hypertext-based authoring tool for argumentative texts. In Hypertext: Concepts, systems and applications (Proceedings of the ECHT'90 European Conference on Hypertext), pages 137-151. Cambridge University Press, 1992.
158. John R. Searle. Speech Acts. Cambridge University Press, New York, 1969.
159. Frank M. Shipman and Catherine C. Marshall. Formality considered harmful: Experiences, emerging themes, and directions on the use of formal representations in interactive systems. Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 8(4):333-352, December 1999.
160. David Shotton. CiTO, the citation typing ontology, and its use for annotation of reference lists and visualization of citation networks. In Bio-Ontologies 2009, a Special Interest Group meeting at ISMB 2009, 2009.
161. David Shotton. CiTO, the citation typing ontology. Journal of Biomedical Semantics, 1(Suppl 1):S6, 2010.
162. Simon Buckingham Shum. Cohere: Towards web 2.0 argumentation. In Computational models of argument: Proceedings of COMMA 2008, volume 172 of Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications. IOS Press, 2008.
163. Simon Buckingham Shum. AIF use case: Iraq debate. AIF 2.0 meeting contribution, http://projects.kmi.open.ac.uk/hyperdiscourse/docs/AIFUseCase-v2. pdf, 2010.
164. Simon Buckingham Shum and Tamara Sumner. JIME: an interactive journal for interactive media. First Monday, 6(2), February 2001.
165. Simon J. Buckingham Shum. The roots of computer supported argument visualization. In Visualizing Argumentation: Software tools for collaborative and educational sensemaking, pages 3-21. Springer, 2003.
166. Simon J. Buckingham Shum, Victoria Uren, Gangmin Li, Bertrand Sereno, and Clara Mancini. Modeling naturalistic argumentation in research literatures: Representation and interaction design issues. International Journal of Intelligent Systems, 22(1):17-47, 2007.
167. Evren Sirin, Bijan Parsia, Bernardo Cuenca Grau, Aditya Kalyanpur, and Yarden Katz. Pellet: A practical OWL-DL reasoner. Web Semantics: Science, Services and Agents on the World Wide Web, 5(2):51-53, 2007.
168. Mark Snaith, Joseph Devereux, John Lawrence, and Chris Reed. Pipelining argumentation technologies. In Computational Models of Argument - Proceedings of COMMA 2010, number 216 in Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications. IOS Press, 2010.
169. Mark Snaith, John Lawrence, and Chris Reed. Mixed initiative argument in public deliberation. In Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Online Deliberation, 2010.
170. M. South, G. Vreeswijk, and J. Fox. Dungine: A JAVA Dung reasoner. In Proceeding of the 2008 conference on Computational Models of Argument (COMMA 2008), pages 360-368. IOS Press, 2008.
171. Norbert A. Streitz, Jörg Hannemann, and Manfred Thüring. From ideas and arguments to hyperdocuments: Travelling through activity spaces. In Proceedings of the second annual ACM conference on Hypertext, HYPERTEXT '89, pages 343-364, 1989.
172. Daniel D. Suthers. Empirical studies of the value of conceptually explicit notations in collaborative learning. In Knowledge Cartography, Advanced Information and Knowledge Processing, pages 1-24. Springer, 2008.
173. Maite Taboada andWilliam C. Mann. Applications of Rhetorical Structure Theory. Discourse Studies, 8(4):567-588, August 2006.
174. Christoph Tempich, H. Sofia Pinto, York Sure, and Steffen Staab. An argumentation ontology for DIstributed, looselycontrolled and evolvInG engineering processes of oNTologies (DILIGENT). In The Semantic Web: Research and Applications, pages 241-256. Springer, 2005.
175. Simone Teufel and Marc Moens. Summarizing scientific articles: Experiments with relevance and rhetorical status. Computational Linguist., 28(4):409-445, 2002.
176. Paul Thagard. Explanatory coherence. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 12(3):435-502, 1989.
177. Terri Attwood Anita de Waard Tim Clark, Paolo Ciccarese and Steve Pettifer. A round-trip to the annotation store: Open, transferable semantic annotation of biomedical publications. In Beyond the PDF workshop, University of California San Diego, 2011.
178. Francesca Toni and Paolo Torroni. Bottom-up argumentation. First
179. Paolo Torroni, Federico Chesani, and Marco Gavanelli. Argumentation in the Semantic Web. IEEE Intelligent Systems, 22(6):66-74, 2007.
180. Stephen Edelston Toulmin. The Uses of Argument. University Press, Cambridge [Eng.], 1958.
181. Douglas P. Twitchell, Mark Adkins, Jay F. Nunamaker Jr., and Judee K. Burgoon. Using speech act theory to model conversations for automated classification and retrieval. In (LAP'04):Proceedings of the 9th International Working Conference on the Language-Action Perspective on Communication Modelling, pages 121-129, 2004.
182. Manolis Tzagarakis, Nikos Karousos, Nikos Karacapilidis, and Dora Nousia. Unleashing argumentation support systems on the Web: The case of CoPe-it! In Web Science 2009, Athens, Greece, March 2009.
183. F. H van Eemeren, editor. Advances in Pragma-Dialectics. SicSat/Vale Press, 2002.
184. Frans H. van Eemeren and Rob Grootendorst. Speech Acts in Argumentative Discussions: A Theoretical Model for the Analysis of Discussions Directed Toward Solving Conflicts of Opinion. de Gruyter Mouton, June 1984.
185. Frans H. van Eemeren and Rob Grootendorst. Argumentation, Communication and Fallacies: A Pragma-Dialectical Perspective. Erlbaum, 1992.
186. Frans H. van Eemeren and Rob Grootendorst. A systematic theory of argumentation: the pragma-dialectical approach. Cambridge University Press, 2004.
187. Frans H. van Eemeren, Rob Grootendorst, and Francisca Snoeck Henkemans. Argumentation: analysis, evaluation, presentation. Erlbaum, 2002.
188. Marilyn A. Walker, Pranav Ananda, Rob Abbott, Jean E. Fox Tree, Craig Martell, and Joseph King. That's your evidence?: Classifying stance in online political debate. Decision Support Systems, in press 2012.
189. Doug Walton, Katie Atkinson, Trevor Bench-Capon, Adam Wyner, and Daniel Cartwright. Argumentation in the framework of deliberation dialogue. Arguing Global Governance: Agency, Lifeworld and Shared Reasoning, page 210, 2010.
190. Douglas Walton. Plausible argument in everyday conversation. SUNY Press, 1992.
191. Douglas Walton. Argumentation Schemes for Presumptive Reasoning. Routledge, 1995.
192. Douglas Walton. How can logic best be applied to arguments? Logic Journal of the IGPL, 5(4):603-614, July 1997.
193. Douglas Walton. Fundamentals of Critical Argumentation. Cambridge University Press, October 2005.
194. Douglas Walton. Dialog Theory for Critical Argumentation. John Benjamins, 2007.
195. Douglas Walton. Informal Logic: A Pragmatic Approach. Cambridge University Press, 2nd edition, 2008.
196. Douglas Walton. Types of dialogue and burdens of proof. In Computational Models of Argument - Proceedings of COMMA 2010, number 216 in Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications, pages 13-24. IOS Press, 2010.
197. Douglas Walton, Chris Reed, and Fabrizio Macagno. Argumentation Schemes. Cambridge University Press, 1st edition, August 2008.
198. Douglas N.Walton. Commitment in dialogue: basic concepts of interpersonal reasoning. State University of New York Press, Albany, 1995.
199. Barbara Warnick. Rhetoric Online: Persuasion and politics on the World Wide Web. Peter Lang, 2007.
200. Bonnie Webber, Markus Egg, and Valia Kordoni. Discourse structure and language technology. Natural Language Engineering, pages 1-54, FirstView Article 2011.
201. Simon Wells, Colin Gourlay, and Chris Reed. Argument blogging. In Proceedings of the IJCAI Workshop on Computational Models of Natural Argument (CMNA), 2009.
202. Simon Wells and Chris Reed. MAgtALO: An agent-based system for persuasive online interaction. In AISB 2008: Artificial Intelligence and Simulation of Behaviour, 2008.
203. Simon Wells and Chris Reed. A domain specific language for describing diverse systems of dialogue. Journal of Applied Logic, 2011. to appear.
204. Robin Wendler. The eye of the beholder: Challenges of image description and access at harvard. In Metadata in Practice, pages 51-69. ALA Editions, 2004.
205. Terry Winograd. A Language/Action perspective on the design of cooperative work. Human-Computer Interaction, 3(1):3-30, March 1987.
206. Adam Wyner, Tom Van Engers, and Kiavash Bahreini. From policy-making statements to first-order logic. In Electronic Government and the Information System Perspective, volume 6267 of LNCS, pages 47-61. Springer, 2010.
207. Adam Wyner, Raquel Mochales-Palau, Marie-Francine Moens, and David Milward. Approaches to text mining arguments from legal cases. In Semantic Processing of Legal Texts, number 6036 in Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 60-79. Springer, 2010.
208. Adam Wyner, Jodi Schneider, Katie Atkinson, and Trevor Bench-Capon. Semi-automated argumentative analysis of online product reviews. In Proceedings of the 2012 conference on Computational Models of Argument (COMMA 2012).
209. Adam Wyner and Tom van Engers. A framework for enriched, controlled on-line discussion forums for egovernment. In eGOV 2010, pages 1-11, 2010.
210. Ka-Ping Yee. Zest: Discussion mapping for mailing lists. In Proceedings of the 2002 ACM conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work, 2002.
211. J. Young, C. Martell, P. Anand, P. Ortiz, and H. T. Gilbert IV. A microtext corpus for persuasion detection in dialog. In Workshops at the Twenty-Fifth AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 2011.
212. Fouad Zablith. ArgDF: Arguments on the Semantic Web. Master's, The British University in Dubai Jointly with The University of Edinburgh, February 2007. http://www.argdf.org/source/.