[Gzz] argumentation models (Re: [ba-unrev-talk] Connecting the Dots... (fwd))

[Alatalo Toni]

interesting questions, could/should we develop answers?
the full msg is archived as
http://www.bootstrap.org/lists/ba-unrev-talk/0303/msg00014.html

a few remarks in the following:

---------- Forward message edited to a quote ----------
Aldo de Moor <address@hidden> wrote To: address@hidden:

> Schematically:
>
> I1 -> P1 + A1 - A3
>          - A2 + A3
>    -> P2 ...
>
> I1 = "the issue of going to war with Iraq"
> P1 = "let's do it!"
> P2 = "forget it!"
> A1 = "One of Eric's arguments in favour of P1"
> A2 = "One of John's arguments against P1"
> A3 = "One of my arguments against P1"

hopefully you get the picture from that, the text explanation and
discussion is in the original message. actually the questions above are so
general that can be addressed without the story, too:

> My questions:
>
> - Arguments can often be linked PRO or CON only one other position or
> argument in many IBIS methods and tools. Are there any IBIS approaches
> in which a new argument node can be linked to multiple other positions
> or arguments?

does this resemble the limitation in zzstructure that from a cell there
can be only one cell neg/poswards on a dimension? e.g. an argument cell
can have an exactly one (issue) cell poswards on d.PRO or d.CON. of course
there are ranks, containment etc. to deal with this .. right?

how is it with RDF? can a resource (node .. i still am not at home with
the rdf terminology) have many same properties?-o or what would this mean?
but i'd guess there's no problem doing that with rdf. there surely are
nodes (resources) that are in 'the same role' in several triple.

you surely can say:

A1 supports P1
A1 supports P3
etc.

.. or?

> - If so, is this multiple linking ad hoc or systematic in the sense of
> leaving it to the authors' initiative to create multiple links, or
> guiding/forcing authors to decide on multiple possible links for their
> argument? Can others than the authors themselves add new links?

for the last question, i don't see why it wouldn't be possible eith e.g. a
Fenfire IBIS applitude(?). the decided policy can of course vary.

> - What criteria can be used to assess whether an argument should be
> positioned to weaken an argument node with which it disagrees, or
> strengthen an argument with which it is in line?

uh, how about doing both?

> - Assume an argument can be linked to multiple other positions or
> argument nodes. Follow-up discussion often originates from one thread to
> which the node is linked, while it doesn't make sense from the
> perspective from another thread of which this node is part. How to
> manage this complexity?

simply associate the discussion to what it is about? hm

> Aldo

i'll try to revise this a bit and send as a reply, comments welcome in the
meantime..

~Toni