Senses of ‘argument’ in instantiated argumentation frameworksFootnote

^†This paper was developed from Wyner, Bench-Capon, and Dunne (2009, 2013)

References

• Baroni P., Caminada M., & Giacomin M. (2011). An introduction to argumentation semantics. Knowledge Engineering Review, 26, 365–410. doi: 10.1017/S0269888911000166
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bench-Capon T.J.M. (2003). Persuasion in practical argument using value-based argumentation frameworks. Journal of Logic and Computation, 13, 429–448. doi: 10.1093/logcom/13.3.429
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Besnard P., & Hunter A. (2008). Elements of argumentation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bondarenko A., Dung P.M., Kowalski R.A., & Toni F. (1997). An abstract, argumentation-theoretic approach to default reasoning. Artificial Intelligence, 93, 63–101. doi: 10.1016/S0004-3702(97)00015-5
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brewka G., & Woltran S. (2010). Abstract dialectical frameworks. Proceedings of the twelfth international conference on the principles of knowledge representation and reasoning (KR 2010), Toronto, pp. 102–211.
   Google Scholar
• Caminada M., & Amgoud L. (2007). On the evaluation of argumentation formalisms. Artificial Intelligence, 171, 286–310. doi: 10.1016/j.artint.2007.02.003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Caminada M., & Wu Y. (2011, November). On the limitations of abstract argumentation. In P.D. Causmaecker, J. Maervoet, T. Messelis, K. Verbeeck, & T. Vermeulen (Eds.), Proceedings of the 23rd Benelux conference on artificial intelligence (pp. 59–66). Ghent.
   Google Scholar
• Dung P.M. (1995). On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games. Artificial Intelligence, 77, 321–357. doi: 10.1016/0004-3702(94)00041-X
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dunne P.E., & Bench-Capon T.J.M. (2002). Coherence in finite argument systems. Artificial Intelligence, 141, 187–203. doi: 10.1016/S0004-3702(02)00261-8
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Egly U., Alice Gaggl S., & Woltran S. (2010). Answer-set programming encodings for argumentation frameworks. Argument & Computation, 1, 147–177. doi: 10.1080/19462166.2010.486479
   Google Scholar
• García A.J., & Simari G.R. (2004). Defeasible logic programming: An argumentative approach. Theory and Practice of Logic Programming, 4, 95–138. doi: 10.1017/S1471068403001674
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gebser M., Kaminski R., Kaufmann B., & Schaub T. (2012). Answer set solving in practice. Morgan & Claypool.
   Google Scholar
• Gelfond M. (2008). Answers set. In F. van Harmelen, V. Lifschitz, & B. Porter (Eds.), Handbook of knowledge representation (Chap. 7, pp. 285–316). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
   Google Scholar
• Gelfond M., & Lifschitz V. (1988). The stable model semantics for logic programming. ICLP/SLP, Seattle, WA, pp. 1070–1080.
   Google Scholar
• Gelfond M., & Lifschitz V. (1991). Classical negation in logic programs and disjunctive databases. New Generation Computing, 9, 365–385. doi: 10.1007/BF03037169
   Google Scholar
• Hoffmann M.H. (2005). Logical argument mapping: A method for overcoming cognitive problems of conflict management. International Journal of Conflict Management, 16, 304–334.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Laronge J.A. (2009). A generalizable argument structure using defeasible class-inclusion transitivity for evaluating evidentiary probative relevancy in litigation. Journal of Logic and Computation, 22, 129–162. doi: 10.1093/logcom/exp066
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lewis D. (1975). Adverbs of quantification. In Formal semantics of natural language (pp. 178–188). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Lifschitz V., Pearce D., & Valverde A. (2001). Strongly equivalent logic programs. ACM Transactions on Computational Logic, 2, 526–541. doi: 10.1145/383779.383783
   Google Scholar
• McCarthy J. (1980). Circumscription – a form of non-monotonic reasoning. Artificial Intelligence, 13, 27–39. doi: 10.1016/0004-3702(80)90011-9
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Modgil S., & Bench-Capon T. (2010). Integrating dialectical and accrual modes of argumentation, Proceedings of COMMA 2010, Desenzano del Garda, pp. 335–346.
   Google Scholar
• Prakken H. (2005). A study of accrual of arguments, with applications to evidential reasoning. Proceedings of ICAIL 2005, Bologna, pp. 85–94.
   Google Scholar
• Prakken H. (2010). An abstract framework for argumentation with structured arguments. Argument and Computation, 1, 93–124. doi: 10.1080/19462160903564592
   Google Scholar
• Prakken H., & Sartor G. (1997). Argument-based extended logic programming with defeasible priorities. Journal of Applied Non-Classical Logics, 7, 25–75. doi: 10.1080/11663081.1997.10510900
   Google Scholar
• Reiter R. (1980). A logic for default reasoning. Artificial Intelligence, 13, 81–132. doi: 10.1016/0004-3702(80)90014-4
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Strass H. (2013). Computational Logic in Multi-Agent Systems, 14th InternationalWorkshop, CLIMA XIV, Corunna, Spain, Proceedings, Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence (Vol. 8143, pp. 86–101). Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
   Google Scholar
• Wyner A. (2008). An ontology in OWL for legal case-based reasoning. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 16, 361–387. doi: 10.1007/s10506-008-9070-8
   Google Scholar
• Wyner A., Bench-Capon T., & Atkinson K. (2008). Three senses of ‘argument’. In G. Sartor, P. Casanovas, R. Rubino, & N. Casellas (Eds.), Computable models of the law: Languages, dialogues, games, ontologies (pp. 146–161, LNAI 4884). Dordrecht: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Wyner A., Bench-Capon T., & Dunne P. (2009). Instantiating knowledge bases in abstract argumentation frameworks. Proceedings of the uses of computational argumentation. AAAI Fall Symposium, Arlington, VA.
   Google Scholar
• Wyner A., Bench-Capon T.J.M., & Dunne P.E. (2013). On the instantiation of knowledge bases in abstract argumentation frameworks. CLIMA, Coruna, pp. 34–50.
   Google Scholar