Prakken‌ Clause Samples

Prakken‌. In [67], ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ establishes a general dialogue framework whose purpose is to formally describe the components needed to formalise any kind of dialogue, e.g. a communica- tion language, the structure of the moves in the dialogue and a protocol that governs the dialogue. He does so whilst being non-commital on certain specifics, e.g. the al- lowed locutions or the argumentation formalism used to instantiate arguments (although an argument is presented as a tree whose nodes are elements of the logical language, the edges between them depict either strict or defeasible inference rules, the root of the tree 12Recall that the forward extension of an enthymeme E concerns filling the gap between the information in E and the claim of the argument A from which E was constructed (possibly including the claim), when the clam is missing. is the conclusion of the argument and its leaves are the argument’s premises, similar to ASPIC+). Secondly, the author explores different protocols (of varying degrees of com- plexity) for regulating dialogues. He also defines the dialogical status of moves made in a dialogue (as in [53]) so that: a) different turntaking and termination rules are examined as well as the relevance of moves, and; b) a correspondence is established between the dia- logical status of the initial move of a dialogue (whose content is the topic of the dialogue) and the justified arguments in supporting the dialogue topic. In [67], ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ presents a general structured formalisation of arguments, similar to that of ASPIC+ (recall that ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇’▇ publication [68] was one of the first regard- ing ASPIC+, together with [58] in his collaboration with ▇▇▇▇▇▇), although he does not go through additional aspects of ASPIC+, such as rationality postulates and accounting for preferences. However, as ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ also shows in his thesis [40], ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇’▇ formal- isation of arguments is general enough to cover various argumentation formalisms, and non-monotonic logics. Additionally, his initial dialogue framework is general enough to capture various kinds of dialogues from Walton and Krabbe’s typology [84], whereas later he specifies locutions and rules which are used to model persuasion dialogues (called lib- eral dialogues). Although our general dialogue definition in Chapter 5 has less details than the ones presented in [67], it has the same purpose, i.e. we want it to be used as a tool for supporting more kinds of dialogues. Moreover, like in [67], we add constraints to ou...