http://www.bibsonomy.org/burst/concept/tag/argumentationBibSonomy BuRST Feed for /concept/tag/argumentation2008-07-21T00:26:27+02:00http://www.bibsonomy.org/bibtex/2ab0d93eae950a6f14653ae66f8ef13da/skarabasakisskarabasakis2008-05-22T23:46:42+02:00RDFS AIF SemanticWeb argumentation eDemocracy <span style="color:#555555;">I. <a href="http://www.bibsonomy.org/author/Rahwan">Rahwan</a> and PV <a href="http://www.bibsonomy.org/author/Sakeer">Sakeer</a> </span><em>Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Computational Models of Argument (COMMA), IOS Press, Amsterdam</em>(<em>2006</em>)Thu May 22 23:46:42 CEST 2008Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Computational Models of Argument (COMMA), IOS Press, Amsterdam{Towards representing and querying arguments on the semantic web}2006RDFS AIF SemanticWeb argumentation eDemocracy http://www.bibsonomy.org/bibtex/2cf8898267b4fe57d6fe27f4f879f6801/skarabasakisskarabasakis2008-05-22T23:40:09+02:00argumentation RDFS ArgDF eDemocracy SemanticWeb AIF <span style="color:#555555;">I. <a href="http://www.bibsonomy.org/author/Rahwan">Rahwan</a> and F. <a href="http://www.bibsonomy.org/author/Zablith">Zablith</a> and C. <a href="http://www.bibsonomy.org/author/Reed">Reed</a> </span><em>Artificial Intelligence</em><em>171(10-15):897--921</em>(<em>2007</em>)Thu May 22 23:40:09 CEST 2008Artificial Intelligence10-15897--921{Laying the foundations for a World Wide Argument Web}1712007argumentation RDFS ArgDF eDemocracy SemanticWeb AIF http://www.bibsonomy.org/bibtex/2ea28caba038ad2d52c2c10fb9c7b7bba/yishyish2008-04-27T20:07:24+02:00implication logic deduction it bibtex-import need fetch logical mythesis argumentation read proof <span style="color:#555555;">Celia <a href="http://www.bibsonomy.org/author/Hoyles">Hoyles</a> and Dietmar <a href="http://www.bibsonomy.org/author/Küchemann">K&#252;chemann</a> </span><em>Educational Studies in Mathematics</em>(<em>2002</em>)Sun Apr 27 20:07:24 CEST 2008Educational Studies in Mathematics193--223Students understandings of logical implication512002implication logic deduction it bibtex-import need fetch logical mythesis argumentation read proof We report results from an analysis of responses to a written question in which high-attaining students in English schools, who formed part of a longitudinal nation-wide survey on proof conceptions, were asked to assess the equivalence of two statements about elementary number theory, one a logical implication and the other its converse, to evaluate the truth of the statements and to justify their conclusions. We present an overview of responses at the end of Year 8 (age 13 years) and an analysis of the approaches taken, and follow this with an analysis of the data collected from students who answered the question again in Year 9 (age 14 years) in order to distinguish learning trajectories. From these analyses, we distinguished three strategies, empirical, focussed-empirical and focussed-deductive, that represent shifts in attention from an inductive to a deductive approach. We noted some progress from Year 8 to Year 9 in the use of the focussed strategies but this was modest at best. The most marked progress was in recognition of the logical necessity of a conclusion of an implication when the antecedent was assumed to be true. Finally we present some theoretical categories to capture different types of meanings students assign to logical implication and the rationale underpinning these meanings. The categories distinguish responses where a statement of logical implication is (or is not) interpreted as equivalent to its converse, where the antecedent and consequent are (or are not) seen as interchangeable, and where conclusions are (or are not) influenced by specific data.CiteULike: Building Agents that Plan and Argue in a Social Contexthttp://www.bibsonomy.org/bibtex/22a1c0e9ce8a715ab89607ee2b66ad6ad/wnpxrzwnpxrz2007-10-24T19:08:31+02:00argumentation agent social <span style="color:#555555;">D. <a href="http://www.bibsonomy.org/author/Kalofonos">Kalofonos</a> and N. <a href="http://www.bibsonomy.org/author/Karunatillake">Karunatillake</a> and N. R. <a href="http://www.bibsonomy.org/author/Jennings">Jennings</a> and T. J. <a href="http://www.bibsonomy.org/author/Norman">Norman</a> and C. <a href="http://www.bibsonomy.org/author/Reed">Reed</a> and S. <a href="http://www.bibsonomy.org/author/Wells">Wells</a> </span><em>Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Computational Models of Argument (COMMA 2006), </em><em>IOS Press, </em>(<em>2006</em>)Wed Oct 24 19:08:31 CEST 2007Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Computational Models of Argument (COMMA 2006)Building Agents that Plan and Argue in a Social Context2006argumentation agent social Citeulike 06/22/07http://www.bibsonomy.org/bibtex/276bc660bd9cea543e14d855b5f02d676/siggisiggi2007-09-16T03:14:39+02:00rationale mining argumentation informationRetrieval datamining based Argumentation design <span style="color:#555555;">Simon B. <a href="http://www.bibsonomy.org/author/Shum">Shum</a> and Nick <a href="http://www.bibsonomy.org/author/Hammond">Hammond</a> </span><em>International Journal of Human-Computer Studies</em><em>40(4):603--652</em><em>April1994. </em>Sun Sep 16 03:14:39 CEST 2007International Journal of Human-Computer StudiesApril4603--652Argumentation-based design rationale: what use at what cost?401994rationale mining argumentation informationRetrieval datamining based Argumentation design A design rationale (DR) is a representation of the reasoning behind the design of an artifact. In recent years, the use of semiformal notations for structuring arguments about design decisions has attracted much interest within the human-computer interaction and software engineering communities, leading to a number of DR notations and support environments. This paper examines two foundational claims made by argumentation-based DR approaches: that expressing DR as argumentation is useful, and that designers can use such notations. The conceptual and empirical basis for these claims is examined, firstly by surveying relevant literature on the use of argumentation in non-design contexts (from which current DR efforts draw much inspiration), and secondly, by surveying DR work. Evidence is classified according to the research contribution it makes, the kind of data on which claims are based (anecdotal or experimental), the extent to which the claims made are substantiated, and whether or not the users of the approach were also the researchers.In the survey, a trend towards tightly integrating DR with other design representations is noted, but it is argued that taken too far, this may result in the loss of the original vision of argumentative design. In examining the evidence for each claim, it is demonstrated firstly, that research into semiformal argumentation outside the design context has failed to substantiate convincingly either of the two claims implicitly attributed to it in current DR research, and secondly, that there are also significant gaps in the DR literature. There are emerging indications, however, that argumentation-based DR can assist certain kinds of design reasoning by turning the representational effort to the designer's advantage, and that such DRs can be useful at a later date. This analysis of argumentation research sets an agenda for future work driven by a concern to support the designer in the whole process of externalizing and structuring DR, from initially ill-formed ideas to more rigorous, coherent argumentation. The paper concludes by clarifying implications for the design of DR training, notations, and tools.http://www.bibsonomy.org/bibtex/29cc181ad5abdef9e9fc04b6421b8328d/klaasdklaasd2007-08-24T17:28:16+02:00rationale compendium ibis argumentation sosbuch <span style="color:#555555;">Simon Buckingham <a href="http://www.bibsonomy.org/author/Shum">Shum</a> and Albert <a href="http://www.bibsonomy.org/author/Selvin">Selvin</a> and Maarten <a href="http://www.bibsonomy.org/author/Sierhuis">Sierhuis</a> and Jeff <a href="http://www.bibsonomy.org/author/Conklin">Conklin</a> and Charles <a href="http://www.bibsonomy.org/author/Haley">Haley</a> and Bashar <a href="http://www.bibsonomy.org/author/Nuseibeh">Nuseibeh</a> </span><em>Rationale Management in Software Engineering, </em><em>Springer, </em>(<em>2006</em>)Fri Aug 24 17:28:16 CEST 2007Rationale Management in Software Engineering111-132{Hypermedia Support for Argumentation-Based Rationale: 15 Years on from gIBIS and QOC}2006rationale compendium ibis argumentation sosbuch http://www.bibsonomy.org/bibtex/2e434fcb4bbe189447fe3f6c68c9df719/klaasdklaasd2007-08-22T10:42:23+02:00sosbuch argumentation <span style="color:#555555;">William C. <a href="http://www.bibsonomy.org/author/Mann">Mann</a> and Sandra A. <a href="http://www.bibsonomy.org/author/Thompson">Thompson</a> </span><em>The Structure of Discourse, </em><em>Ablex Publishing Corporation, </em><em>Norwood, N.J., </em>(<em>1987</em>)Wed Aug 22 10:42:23 CEST 2007Norwood, N.J.The Structure of DiscourseRhetorical structure theory: A theory of text organization1987sosbuch argumentation dblphttp://www.bibsonomy.org/bibtex/2f651ac9014fb1c8f5c834d53d423eb23/klaasdklaasd2007-08-22T10:40:51+02:00rationale argumentation diligent sosbuch <span style="color:#555555;">Helena Sofia <a href="http://www.bibsonomy.org/author/Pinto">Pinto</a> and Steffen <a href="http://www.bibsonomy.org/author/Staab">Staab</a> and Christoph <a href="http://www.bibsonomy.org/author/Tempich">Tempich</a> </span><em>ECAI, </em><em>page393-397. </em><em>IOS Press, </em>(<em>2004</em>)Wed Aug 22 10:40:51 CEST 2007ECAIconf/ecai/2004393-397DILIGENT: Towards a fine-grained methodology for Distributed, Loosely-controlled and evolving Engineering of oNTologies.2004rationale argumentation diligent sosbuch http://www.bibsonomy.org/bibtex/2b03249d809d8cdce4c0f59c6a121e719/klaasdklaasd2007-08-21T17:24:29+02:00rationale ibis sosbuch qoc argumentation <span style="color:#555555;">Allan <a href="http://www.bibsonomy.org/author/MacLean">MacLean</a> and Richard <a href="http://www.bibsonomy.org/author/Young">Young</a> and Victoria <a href="http://www.bibsonomy.org/author/Bellotti">Bellotti</a> and Tom <a href="http://www.bibsonomy.org/author/Moran">Moran</a> </span><em>Human-Computer Interaction</em>(<em>1991</em>)Tue Aug 21 17:24:29 CEST 2007Human-Computer Interaction201-250Questions, Options, and Criteria: Elements of Design Space Analysis61991rationale ibis sosbuch qoc argumentation http://www.bibsonomy.org/bibtex/23b6bbf118cf0c262a7b14560c23956ac/klaasdklaasd2007-08-21T17:13:18+02:00phi argumentation rationale ibis sosbuch <span style="color:#555555;">Raymond <a href="http://www.bibsonomy.org/author/McCall">McCall</a> </span><em>Design Studies</em><em>12(1):30-41</em>(<em>1991</em>)Tue Aug 21 17:13:18 CEST 2007Design Studies130-41PHI: A conceptual foundation for design hypermedia121991phi argumentation rationale ibis sosbuch http://www.bibsonomy.org/bibtex/27711989c562949ae7543f4b59745d1e5/klaasdklaasd2007-08-21T17:10:59+02:00sosbuch argumentation phi ibis rationale <span style="color:#555555;">Raymond <a href="http://www.bibsonomy.org/author/McCall">McCall</a> </span><em>University of California, Berkeley, </em>(<em>1979</em>)Tue Aug 21 17:10:59 CEST 2007On the structure and use of issue systems in design1979sosbuch argumentation phi ibis rationale http://www.bibsonomy.org/bibtex/2acefb0a2dc9b410050cea1bda4fbdc99/klaasdklaasd2007-08-21T13:54:51+02:00sosbuch argumentation rationale <span style="color:#555555;">Jintae <a href="http://www.bibsonomy.org/author/Lee">Lee</a> </span><em>ICSE '91: Proceedings of the 13th international conference on Software engineering, </em><em>page114--125. </em><em>Los Alamitos, CA, USA, </em><em>IEEE Computer Society Press, </em>(<em>1991</em>)Tue Aug 21 13:54:51 CEST 2007Los Alamitos, CA, USAICSE '91: Proceedings of the 13th international conference on Software engineering114--125Extending the Potts and Bruns model for recording design rationale1991sosbuch argumentation rationale dblphttp://www.bibsonomy.org/bibtex/27eb33d902538ad859627b6b04d6f3fd4/klaasdklaasd2007-08-20T18:13:37+02:00ibis argumentation sosbuch <span style="color:#555555;">Jeff <a href="http://www.bibsonomy.org/author/Conklin">Conklin</a> and Michael L. <a href="http://www.bibsonomy.org/author/Begeman">Begeman</a> </span><em>JASIS</em><em>40(3):200-213</em>(<em>1989</em>)Mon Aug 20 18:13:37 CEST 2007JASIS3200-213gIBIS: A tool for all reasons.401989ibis argumentation sosbuch dblphttp://www.bibsonomy.org/bibtex/2a0ed3227eec9fc9f04435fc32f0a9c18/klaasdklaasd2007-08-20T18:12:48+02:00argumentation sosbuch <span style="color:#555555;">Colin <a href="http://www.bibsonomy.org/author/Potts">Potts</a> and Glenn <a href="http://www.bibsonomy.org/author/Bruns">Bruns</a> </span><em>ICSE, </em><em>page418-427. </em>(<em>1988</em>)Mon Aug 20 18:12:48 CEST 2007ICSE418-427Recording the Reasons for Design Decisions.1988argumentation sosbuch http://www.bibsonomy.org/bibtex/23b04feee392f128b43aa10a6f8f88427/klaasdklaasd2007-08-20T18:12:15+02:00sosbuch ibis argumentation <span style="color:#555555;">Werner <a href="http://www.bibsonomy.org/author/Kunz">Kunz</a> and Horst <a href="http://www.bibsonomy.org/author/Rittel">Rittel</a> </span><em>Working Paper, </em><em>131. </em><em>Institute of Urban and Regional Development, University of California, </em><em>Berkeley, California, </em>(<em>1970</em>)Mon Aug 20 18:12:15 CEST 2007Berkeley, California131Issues as elements of information systemsWorking Paper1970sosbuch ibis argumentation Not previously uploadedhttp://www.bibsonomy.org/bibtex/27a6742393564b8affc46cd14b4b8cfd4/klaasdklaasd2007-08-20T18:12:07+02:00sosbuch argumentation ibis <span style="color:#555555;">Horst W. J. <a href="http://www.bibsonomy.org/author/Rittel">Rittel</a> and Melvin M. <a href="http://www.bibsonomy.org/author/Webber">Webber</a> </span><em>Policy Sciences</em><em>4(2):155--169</em><em>June1973. </em>Mon Aug 20 18:12:07 CEST 2007Policy SciencesJune2155--169Dilemmas in a general theory of planning41973sosbuch argumentation ibis The search for scientific bases for confronting problems of social policy is bound to fail, because of the nature of these problems. They are "wicked" problems, whereas science has developed to deal with ldquotamerdquo problems. Policy problems cannot be definitively described. Moreover, in a pluralistic society there is nothing like the undisputable public good; there is no objective definition of equity; policies that respond to social problems cannot be meaningfully correct or false; and it makes no sense to talk about optimal solutions to social problems unless severe qualifications are imposed first. Even worse, there are no ldquosolutionsrdquo in the sense of definitive and objective answers. This is a modification of a paper presented to the Panel on Policy Sciences, American Association for the Advancement of Science, Boston, December 1969.citeulikehttp://www.bibsonomy.org/bibtex/28c8408f1671a61bda601f44676196d07/a_olympiaa_olympia2007-08-18T13:22:24+02:00argumentation theory <span style="color:#555555;">Frans H. <a href="http://www.bibsonomy.org/author/van Eemereen">van Eemereen</a> (eds.). </span><em>Amsterdam University Press, </em><em>August2001. </em>Sat Aug 18 13:22:24 CEST 2007PaperbackAugustCrucial Concepts in Argumentation Theory2001argumentation theory citeulikehttp://www.bibsonomy.org/bibtex/284ca3bfc256b7abc244e6e7ea72c6c1a/a_olympiaa_olympia2007-08-18T13:22:24+02:00argumentation <span style="color:#555555;">Timothy J. <a href="http://www.bibsonomy.org/author/Norman">Norman</a> and Chris <a href="http://www.bibsonomy.org/author/Reed">Reed</a> </span><em>Springer, </em><em>December2003. </em>Sat Aug 18 13:22:24 CEST 2007HardcoverDecemberArgumentation Machines : New Frontiers in Argument and Computation (Argumentation Library)2003argumentation http://www.bibsonomy.org/bibtex/25469145dc263c6b639302e7e2b420207/valentinapresuttivalentinapresutti2007-08-01T01:07:01+02:00functionalities collaborative argumentation meta-modelling design ontology workflow rationale solution pattern social-level metadata requirements project <span style="color:#555555;">Carola <a href="http://www.bibsonomy.org/author/Catenacci">Catenacci</a> and Jos <a href="http://www.bibsonomy.org/author/Lehmann">Lehmann</a> and Malvina <a href="http://www.bibsonomy.org/author/Nissim">Nissim</a> and Valentina <a href="http://www.bibsonomy.org/author/Presutti">Presutti</a> and Geri <a href="http://www.bibsonomy.org/author/Steve">Steve</a> </span><em>Deliverable, </em><em>D2.1.1. </em><em>NeOn project, </em>(<em>2007</em>)Wed Aug 01 01:07:01 CEST 2007D2.1.1Design rationales for collaborative development of networked ontologies – State of the art and the Collaborative Ontology Design OntologyDeliverable2007functionalities collaborative argumentation meta-modelling design ontology workflow rationale solution pattern social-level metadata requirements project http://www.bibsonomy.org/bibtex/2d511e9a014b1dc380874f9e80f4adfc6/yishyish2007-07-21T18:22:45+02:00explaining QCA evaluation mathematics primary reasoning assessment divisibility learning argumentation <span style="color:#555555;">Hilary <a href="http://www.bibsonomy.org/author/Evens">Evens</a> and Jenny <a href="http://www.bibsonomy.org/author/Houssart">Houssart</a> </span><em>Educational Research</em><em>46(3):269-282</em>(<em>2004</em>) <em>This paper utilizes Toulmin&#039;s original framework to analyse over 400 answers given by 11-year-olds to a question on a written mathematics test. The questio<span class="info">...<span>This paper utilizes Toulmin's original framework to analyse over 400 answers given by 11-year-olds to a question on a written mathematics test. The question required children to say whether a given statement is true and give a written explanation. Categorizations of answers are developed from the data and examined, suggesting that many children appeared to understand the mathematics but were not able to give adequate explanations. Findings are also compared with other researchers' findings. In contrast to other studies, a large category of non-valid answers appear mathematical, but are largely restatement of the information the children were given. Although only a minority provided explanations deemed worthy of a mark, further analysis demonstrates greater degrees of comprehension than this suggests. Teaching strategies for building children's expressive and specifying skills are identified.</span></span> . </em>Sat Jul 21 18:22:45 CEST 2007Educational ResearchThis paper utilizes Toulmin's original framework to analyse over 400 answers given by 11-year-olds to a question on a written mathematics test. The question required children to say whether a given statement is true and give a written explanation. Categorizations of answers are developed from the data and examined, suggesting that many children appeared to understand the mathematics but were not able to give adequate explanations. Findings are also compared with other researchers' findings. In contrast to other studies, a large category of non-valid answers appear mathematical, but are largely restatement of the information the children were given. Although only a minority provided explanations deemed worthy of a mark, further analysis demonstrates greater degrees of comprehension than this suggests. Teaching strategies for building children's expressive and specifying skills are identified.3269-282Categorizing pupils' written answers to a mathematics test question: 'I know but I can't explain'462004explaining QCA evaluation mathematics primary reasoning assessment divisibility learning argumentation