Lucas Carstens, Francesca Toni, Valentinos Evripidou
451 - 452
With this demonstration we introduce AFAlpha, a prototype of an Argument Mining tool, working in unison with Quaestio-it, an online social debating platform. While AFAlpha extracts arguments from text, as well as attack and support relations between arguments, Quaestio-it is concerned with visualising and evaluating interactive debates. We thus use Quaestio-it to represent and visualise output from AFAlpha, with the goal of taking plain text, in our case online reviews, and representing it in the form of a debate.
GRAFIX is a graphical tool for handling abstract argumentation graphs. GRAFIX allows the edition and the presentation of argumentation graphs (or sets of graphs), and the execution of some “predefined treatments” (called “server treatments”) on the current graph(s) such as, for instance, computing various acceptability semantics, or computing the strength of arguments. GRAFIX also allows the user to introduce her own treatments (“client treatments”).
The MARKOS license analyser is an innovative application of the latest version of the Carneades argumentation system, for helping software developers to analyse open source license compatibility issues.
This paper introduces OVA+, an on-line interface for the analysis of arguments. It is the result of an attempt to provide a tool relying on the Argument Interchange Format theory and Inference Anchoring Theory schemes.
Requirements engineering is an essential step of the software development process during which the behavior of a software system is defined. A lot of artifacts are created at this stage of the development process, and stakeholders need to be supported in managing requirements' consistency and evolution over time. In this paper, we present ArgRE, an argumentation-based system to be used by stakeholders to structure complex goal-based requirements, and maintain their consistency over time. In particular, we rely on meta-argumentation, where requirements are represented as arguments, and the standard Dung-like argumentation framework is extended with the relations holding among goal-based requirements.
Yutaka Oomidou, Yuki Katsura, Hajime Sawamura, Jacques Riche, Takeshi Hagiwara
471 - 472
PIRIKA (an acronym for PIlot for the RIght Knowledge and Argument) is an argument-based communication tool for humans and agents, which supplements and alternates the current communication systems such as Twitter, Line, etc. It allows for asynchronous argumentation for anyone, anytime, anywhere on any issues, as well as synchronous argumentation and stand-alone argumentation. In addition to the Dungean semantics, it also incorporates a recently devised argumentation semantics: the balanced semantics for argumentation based on Heider's socio-psychological balance theory.
We present AsseSS, a tool for identifying and assessing the support structures of arguments in user comments. Given a comment, the system first classifies elementary units of arguments comprising the comment based on the type of appropriate support. Then, it detects support relations among the elementary units. With this information, it is possible to decide whether the existing support relation is of suitable type. Also, in the case that no support has been provided for an elementary unit, an appropriate type of support can be determined.
We present an implementation of Wyner, Bench-Capon and Dunne's  approach to instantiate knowledge bases in argumentation frameworks. The translation is encoded into answer set programming (ASP); the encoding can be used with ASP-based implementations of argumentation frameworks, such as aspartix or diamond.
Within the framework of the European project EcoBioCap (ECOefficient BIOdegradable Composite Advanced Packaging), aiming at conceiving the next generation of food packagings, we introduce an argumentation-based tool for management of conflicting viewpoints between preferences expressed by the involved parties (food and packaging industries, health and waste management etc.).
Alice Toniolo, Timothy Dropps, Robin Wentao Ouyang, John A. Allen, Timothy J. Norman, Nir Oren, Mani Srivastava, Paul Sullivan
481 - 482
We present the CISpaces framework, a collaborative virtual space for intelligence analysts for the elaboration of information to explain a situation. CISpaces supports the analysis of conflicting information in collaboration exploiting argumentation schemes to structure and share analyses, crowd-sourcing to collect information and provenance to establish the credibility of hypotheses.
In this paper I present two user interface concepts: a) Argdown, a simple markup syntax for incorporating argument semantics into online text messages and b) a Stacked Masonry layout for argument maps. Both aim at making the reconstruction and visualisation of arguments easier and more intuitive for non-expert users. These ideas have been implemented in DIO, a new real-time web application.