Add new post

It’s been gently suggested to me that we should think about where this group is going wrt standardization.

I have a few thoughts on the matter, but in the interests of not
prejudging anything, I created two polls on the topic. (Really, used the posting functionality to fake a poll; answer in the comments)


I’ve tried to phrase the questions in a completely neutral way. I do have some opinions on the topic but they can wait.

I also invite general discussion on the direction the group should go in.

Tom Breton


Poll 2: State of the leading standard

(Again using this post as a sort of straw poll. Please comment with your answer and feel free to add additional comments. Also see the previous post/poll)

Regarding the existing standard you considered best in the previous question, how advanced do you believe it is as a potential standard?  Should this group:

  • Adopt it without any changes
  • Adopt it with few changes
  • Use it as a base to build on, making moderate changes
  • Use it as a base to build on, making many changes
  • Don’t use it as a base, but do borrow from it
  • Start completely fresh

Poll 1: Leading Standard

(Since we don’t appear to have polling functionality, I’m using this
post as a sort of straw poll. Please comment with your answer and feel free to add any further comments. Also see the next post/poll)

Please indicate which of these existing standards is the best
candidate for an argument representation standard, in your best
judgement and regardless how much or how little additional work it needs:

  • AIF
  • AML
  • LKIF (really, the module of LKIF that deals with argument)
  • PML
  • Other (Please write it in the comments so the rest of the group is aware of it)


Towards an argument interchange format, a proposal.

Towards an Argument Interchange Format

Carlos I. ChesñevarJarred McGinnisSanjay ModgilIyad RahwanChris ReedGuillermo R. SimariMatthew SouthGerard VreeswijkSteven WillmottThe Knowledge Engineering Review. Volume 21, Number 4, December 2006. pp. 293-316 (see


The theory of argumentation is a rich, interdisciplinary area of research straddling the fields of artificial intelligence, philosophy, communication studies, linguistics and psychology. In the last few years, significant progress has been made in understanding the theoretical properties of different argumentation logics. However, one major barrier to the development and practical deployment of argumentation systems is the lack of a shared, agreed notation or ‘interchange format’ for argumentation and arguments. In this paper, we describe a draft specification for an argument interchange format (AIF) intended for representation and exchange of data between various argumentation tools and agent-based applications. It represents a consensus ‘abstract model’ established by researchers across fields of argumentation, artificial intelligence and multi-agent systems1. In its current form, this specification is intended as a starting point for further discussion
and elaboration by the community, rather than an attempt at a definitive, all-encompassing model. However, to demonstrate proof of concept, a use case scenario is briefly described. Moreover, three concrete realizations or ‘reifications’ of the abstract model are illustrated.

Areas of accomodation

One issue that we face is accomodating ancillary functionality:

  • Whether to accomodate
  • How much
  • How

The last item, in my view, suggests a cautious answer:  In order to keep our scope small, perhaps we can proceed by merely surveying primary parties about what ancillary information they need to read and write, choosing a suitable location and existing format, and leaving it at that.


Potential areas wanting accommodation, not all of which we may wish to support, might include:

  • Mechanical theorem provers and proof checkers
    • Writing proofs into this format
    • Reading and proof-checking arguments that aspire to rigor.
    • Annotating this format with the results of such checking.
  • Argument visualization software
    • Reading the format and producing visualizations.
      • Expecting some sort of visual placement hints.
      • Or (better for us) deciding visual placement entirely by their own means.
  • Editors for transcribing or annotating arguments.  I honestly don’t know the state of the art here at all.
  • Automated transcription, such as by natural language understanding.

Please feel free to comment.

State of argument representation

First, I’m very much aware that there’s more going on in software and formats than I can personally keep track of.  So please, everybody, feel free to comment with corrections and updates.

That said, as I see it, the situation as we begin this group is this.  There are or have recently been several strong contenders for a standard format.  We are not bound to recommend one, modified or otherwise, but  for background I’ll list the popular ones to the best of my knowledge:

  • One formerly popular format, AML, has been cut loose by Araucaria.
  • AIF has become a popular representation format, probably the most popular at the moment.  It does a number of things right in my opinion.
  • LKIF is also fairly popular.  One issue with LKIF is that it is not primarily an argumentation format; argument representation is one module among many.  One the other hand, it has the virtue of having “work experience”, as it were, in representing contentious real world legal arguments.

“Statements or statement-like objects”

Our mission statement refers to “statement-like objects”. In order to
dispel any lingering mystery, I’ll talk about that in this post.

I phrase it that way so that we don’t commit prematurely to a
representation. A mission statement would be too early to decide that. Nevertheless, they are constrained to be statement-like and connected so that our concept of argument isn’t too anything-goes. I think that’s the right balance.

Statement-like objects could conceivably include, for instance:

  • Formulas that represent statements but arguably are not actually statements.
  • MECE sets of statements, should we choose to treat them as single objects.


Welcome to the Argument Representation Community Group.

Argument Representation’s mission is to recommend a standardized representation for formal argument.

The group does not neccessarily commit to creating a novel
representation. For instance, after due consideration it could
endorse an existing one or recommend accepting an existing one with
minor changes.

Formal argument is taken to mean a formalizable set of connected
statements or statement-like objects intended to establish a

Argument-Representation does not intend to augment XML in any other