Grounded Semantics as Persuasion Dialogue (bibtex)
by Martin Caminada, Miko?aj Podlaszewski
Abstract:
One of the differences between the fields of dialogue theory and the field of (Dung-style) argumentation is that the former is mainly concerned with the procedural aspects of (semi-natural) discussion, whereas the latter is mainly concerned with the results of a nonmonotonic reasoning process. Nevertheless, it is perfectly possible to use dialogue theory to serve as a conceptual basis for Dung-style argumentation semantics. The idea is that an argument is accepted iff it can be defended in formal dialogue. Moreover, different argumentation semantics can be shown to coincide with different types of dialogue. In previous work, we have observed that (credulous) preferred semantics can be described in terms of Socratic dialogue. In the current work, we show that grounded semantics can be described in terms of persuasion dialogue.
Reference:
Grounded Semantics as Persuasion Dialogue (Martin Caminada, Miko?aj Podlaszewski), In Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Computational Models of Argument (COMMA 2012), IOS Press, volume 245, 2012.
Bibtex Entry:
@InProceedings{Caminada2012,
  Title                    = {Grounded Semantics as Persuasion Dialogue},
  Author                   = {Caminada, Martin and Podlaszewski, Miko?aj},
  Booktitle                = {Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Computational Models of Argument (COMMA 2012)},
  Year                     = {2012},
  Pages                    = {478-485},
  Publisher                = {IOS Press},
  Volume                   = {245},

  __markedentry            = {[diego.ambrossio:6]},
  Abstract                 = {One of the differences between the fields of dialogue theory and the field of (Dung-style) argumentation is that the former is mainly concerned with the procedural aspects of (semi-natural) discussion, whereas the latter is mainly concerned with the results of a nonmonotonic reasoning process. Nevertheless, it is perfectly possible to use dialogue theory to serve as a conceptual basis for Dung-style argumentation semantics. The idea is that an argument is accepted iff it can be defended in formal dialogue. Moreover, different argumentation semantics can be shown to coincide with different types of dialogue. In previous work, we have observed that (credulous) preferred semantics can be described in terms of Socratic dialogue. In the current work, we show that grounded semantics can be described in terms of persuasion dialogue.},
  Date-added               = {2012-12-19 18:21:50 +0100},
  Date-modified            = {2012-12-19 18:21:50 +0100},
  ISBN                     = {978-1-61499-110-6},
  Language                 = {English},
  Timestamp                = {2013.07.26}
}
Powered by bibtexbrowser