Using Computational Argumentation to Support E-participation

Cartwright, D.; Atkinson, Katie

doi:10.1109/mis.2009.104

Cited by 45 publications

(33 citation statements)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In contrast with our work, a kind of cause-and-effect examination is not explicitly presented there as it is in our set of schemes. The schemes used in [13] rely on the generalized argumentation templates presented in [9]. Our work also exploits the reuse of such generalized scheme formulations, adapting a selected scheme from such catalogue to the specification of argumentation templates for the analysis of requirement risks.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Those schemes were constructed from the generalization of safety-based issues commonly found in this domain. In [13], schemes are used in e-government and e-participation scenarios, where a web-based platform to promote democratic participation and debate of legal projects is proposed. Through a web-based tool, legal proposals can be input to the system, and citizens participate in the evaluation of those proposals through a website, either supporting or not the proposals.…”

Section: Requirement Risks and Argumentation Schemesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Such a scheme model presents a template for an argument type in an application problem, where this template can be used by stakeholders to elaborate and analyze argument instances to be advanced in their debates. As exploited in different applications [10][11][12][13], argumentation schemes can also be proposed so that they are used in the collaborative management of requirement risks in software projects.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Argumentation Schemes for the Collaborative Debate of Requirement Risks in Software Projects

Siqueira

Fontoura

Bordini

et al. 2017

International Conferences on Software Engineering and Knowledge Engineering

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

-Managing risks in real-world software projects is of paramount importance. A significant class of such risks is related to the engineering of requirements, commonly involving the presentation and analysis of risk management arguments from both software engineers and clients involved in collaborative debates. In this work, drawing inspiration from argumentation theory in Artificial Intelligence, we introduce a number of "argumentation schemes" and associated "critical questions" to support such discussions. In doing so, we propose schemes related to risks due to excessive numbers of requirements; inadequate client representatives and poor understanding of client needs; incorrect, incomplete and conflicting requirements, and complex and non-traceable requirements. We also present a case study where the developed schemes were used to support the discussion of requirement risks in the context of a research and prototyping software project for the Brazilian Army.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Requirement Risks and Argumentation Schemesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Argumentation Schemes for the Collaborative Debate of Requirement Risks in Software Projects

Siqueira

Fontoura

Bordini

et al. 2017

International Conferences on Software Engineering and Knowledge Engineering

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Related work especially concerns formal argumentation-based models for practical reasoning and decision making, such as [1,2,6]. In particular, our distinction between sufficient and necessary criteria is similar to [1]'s distinction of criteria for positive and negative goals (positive goals are states to be realised while negative goals are states to be avoided).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For our formal example we will use an issue in UK Road Traffic policy, previously used as an e-participation example in [6]. The number of fatal road accidents is an obvious cause for concern, and in the UK there are speed restrictions on various types of road, in the belief that excessive speed causes accidents.…”

Section: A Formal Examplementioning

confidence: 99%

Argument schemes for two-phase democratic deliberation

Bench‐Capon

Prakken

Visser

2011

Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A formal two-phase model of democratic policy deliberation is presented, in which in the first phase sufficient and necessary criteria for proposals to be accepted are determined (the 'acceptable' criteria) and in the second phase proposals are made and evaluated in light of the acceptable criteria resulting from the first phase. Such a separation gives the discussion a clear structure and prevents time and resources from being wasted on evaluating arguments for proposals based on unacceptable criteria. Argument schemes for both phases are defined and formalised in a logical framework for structured argumentation. The process of deliberation is abstracted from and it is assumed that both deliberation phases result in a set of arguments and attack and defeat relations between them. The acceptability status of criteria and proposals within the resulting argumentation framework is then evaluated using preferred semantics. For cases where preferences are required to choose between proposals, inference rules for deriving preferences between sets from an ordering of their elements are given.

show abstract