The Argument Model Ontology
(AMO)

IRI:
http://www.essepuntato.it/2011/02/argumentmodel
Date:
04/05/2011
Current version:
1.0
Authors:
Fabio Vitali
Silvio Peroni
Imported Ontologies:
http://purl.org/spar/cito/ (visualise it with LODE)
Other visualisation:
Ontology source
Machester Ontology Browser

This ontology is distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution License - http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0

Abstract

The Argument Model Ontology is an OWL 2 DL ontology that allows to describe argumentation according to the 'Toulmin Model of Argument'.

Table of Content

  1. Introduction
  2. Classes
  3. Object Properties
  4. Annotation Properties
  5. Namespace Declarations

Introduction

Throughout many of his works, Toulmin pointed out that absolutism (represented by theoretical or analytic arguments) has limited practical value. Absolutism is derived from Plato’s idealized formal logic, which advocates universal truth; accordingly, absolutists believe that moral issues can be resolved by adhering to a standard set of moral principles, regardless of context. By contrast, Toulmin asserts that many of these so-called standard principles are irrelevant to real situations encountered by human beings in daily life.

To reinforce his assertion, Toulmin introduced the concept of argument fields; in 'The Uses of Argument (1958)', Toulmin states that some aspects of arguments vary from field to field, and are hence called 'field-dependent', while other aspects of argument are the same throughout all fields, and are hence called 'field-invariant'. The flaw of absolutism, Toulmin believes, lies in its unawareness of the field-dependent aspect of argument; absolutism assumes that all aspects of argument are field invariant.

As consequence of those critiques, Toulmin aimed to develop a different type of argument, called practical arguments (also known as substantial arguments). In contrast to absolutists’ theoretical arguments, Toulmin’s practical argument is intended to focus on the justificatory function of argumentation, as opposed to the inferential function of theoretical arguments. Whereas theoretical arguments make inferences based on a set of principles to arrive at a claim, practical arguments first find a claim of interest, and then provide justification for it. Toulmin believed that reasoning is less an activity of inference, involving the discovering of new ideas, and more a process of testing and sifting already existing ideas—an act achievable through the process of justification.

Toulmin believed that for a good argument to succeed, it needs to provide good justification for a claim. This, he believed, will ensure it stands up to criticism and earns a favourable verdict. Toulmin proposed a layout containing six interrelated components for analyzing arguments: claim, evidence, warrant, backing, qualifier and rebuttal.

This ontology aims to encode the Toulmin's theory through OWL classes and properties, in order to describe a web of inter-linked entities that participate, with a specific role, in one or more arguments.

Moreover, this ontology is aligned with CiTO, the Citation Typing Ontology (http://purl.org/spar/cito), an ontology for the characterization of citations, both factually and rhetorically that forms part of SPAR, a suite of Semantic Publishing and Referencing Ontologies.

Classes

argumentc back to ToC or Class ToC

IRI: http://www.essepuntato.it/2011/02/argumentmodel/Argument

An argument, or practical argument according to the 'Toulmin model of argument', focuses on the justificatory function of argumentation: practical arguments first find a claim of interest, and then provide justification for it.

Each argument must be analyzed according to six interrelated components: claim, evidence, warrant, backing, rebuttal and qualifier. The first three elements, 'claim', 'data' and 'warrant', are considered as the essential components of practical arguments, while the second triad, 'qualifier', 'backing', and 'rebuttal', may not be needed in some arguments.

has super-classes
is in domain of
has backingop, has claimop, has evidenceop, has qualifierop, has rebuttalop, has warrantop, involvesop
is disjoint with

argumentation entityc back to ToC or Class ToC

IRI: http://www.essepuntato.it/2011/02/argumentmodel/ArgumentationEntity

An entity that takes part in an argument according to the 'Toulmin model of argument'.

is equivalent to
is in range of
relates toop

backingc back to ToC or Class ToC

IRI: http://www.essepuntato.it/2011/02/argumentmodel/Backing

Sort of credentials that certifies the warrant - e.g., the OWL 2 document specifications.

is equivalent to
is in domain of
backsop
is in range of
has backingop

claimc back to ToC or Class ToC

IRI: http://www.essepuntato.it/2011/02/argumentmodel/Claim

A fact that must be established - e.g., 'This is a consistent OWL ontology'.

is equivalent to
is in domain of
is valid unlessop
is in range of
forcesop, has claimop, leads toop, provesop

evidencec back to ToC or Class ToC

IRI: http://www.essepuntato.it/2011/02/argumentmodel/Evidence

A fact that represents a foundation for the claim - e.g., 'This ontology was developed in OWL'.

is equivalent to
is in domain of
provesop, supportsop
is in range of
has evidenceop

qualifierc back to ToC or Class ToC

IRI: http://www.essepuntato.it/2011/02/argumentmodel/Qualifier

Words or phrases that express the degree of certainty of the claim such as “certainly”, “possible”, “probably”, “presumably”, etc.

is equivalent to
is in domain of
forcesop
is in range of
has qualifierop

rebuttalc back to ToC or Class ToC

IRI: http://www.essepuntato.it/2011/02/argumentmodel/Rebuttal

Restrictions that may be applied to the claim - 'Unless a reasoner for OWL 2 proves that it is not consistent'.

is equivalent to
is in range of
has rebuttalop, is valid unlessop

warrantc back to ToC or Class ToC

IRI: http://www.essepuntato.it/2011/02/argumentmodel/Warrant

A statement bridging from the evidence to the claim - e.g., 'An ontology developed in OWL is a consistent OWL ontology'.

is equivalent to
is in domain of
leads toop
is in range of
backsop, has warrantop, supportsop

Object Properties

backsop back to ToC or Object Property ToC

IRI: http://www.essepuntato.it/2011/02/argumentmodel/backs

A backing that attests the warrant of an argument.

has super-properties
has domain
has range

forcesop back to ToC or Object Property ToC

IRI: http://www.essepuntato.it/2011/02/argumentmodel/forces

A qualifier that expresses as degree of force concerning a claim of an argument.

has super-properties
has domain
has range
has sub-property chains

By means of the property chain defined, the assertion that links a qualifier to the relative claim is automatically inferred starting from the high-level description of an argument (realized through the sub-properties of 'involves' and their inverse properties).

has backingop back to ToC or Object Property ToC

IRI: http://www.essepuntato.it/2011/02/argumentmodel/hasBacking

An argument includes a backing as one of its (optional) components.

has super-properties
has domain
has range

has claimop back to ToC or Object Property ToC

IRI: http://www.essepuntato.it/2011/02/argumentmodel/hasClaim

An argument includes a claim as one of its (mandatory) components.

has characteristics: functional

has super-properties
has domain
has range

has evidenceop back to ToC or Object Property ToC

IRI: http://www.essepuntato.it/2011/02/argumentmodel/hasEvidence

An argument includes an evidence as one of its (mandatory) components.

has super-properties
has domain
has range

has qualifierop back to ToC or Object Property ToC

IRI: http://www.essepuntato.it/2011/02/argumentmodel/hasQualifier

An argument includes a qualifier as one of its (optional) components.

has characteristics: functional

has super-properties
has domain
has range

has rebuttalop back to ToC or Object Property ToC

IRI: http://www.essepuntato.it/2011/02/argumentmodel/hasRebuttal

An argument includes a rebuttal as one of its (optional) components.

has super-properties
has domain
has range

has warrantop back to ToC or Object Property ToC

IRI: http://www.essepuntato.it/2011/02/argumentmodel/hasWarrant

An argument includes a warrant as one of its (mandatory) components.

has super-properties
has domain
has range

involvesop back to ToC or Object Property ToC

IRI: http://www.essepuntato.it/2011/02/argumentmodel/involves

An argument involves an argumentation entity (claim, evidence, warrant, backing, rebuttal) or a qualifier.

has sub-properties
has backingop, has claimop, has evidenceop, has qualifierop, has rebuttalop, has warrantop
has domain
has range

This property and its sub-properties serve to describe an argument from an high-level perspective (i.e., which argumentation entities take part in it and what role they hold) rather than from a factual point of view (i.e., how argumentation entities are inter-linked between them).

is backing inop back to ToC or Object Property ToC

IRI: http://www.essepuntato.it/2011/02/argumentmodel/isBackingIn

An argumentative entity linked to an argument in which it is considered a backing.

has super-properties
is inverse of

is claim inop back to ToC or Object Property ToC

IRI: http://www.essepuntato.it/2011/02/argumentmodel/isClaimIn

An argumentative entity linked to an argument in which it is considered a claim.

has super-properties
is inverse of

is evidence inop back to ToC or Object Property ToC

IRI: http://www.essepuntato.it/2011/02/argumentmodel/isEvidenceIn

An argumentative entity linked to an argument in which it is considered an evidence.

has super-properties
is inverse of

is involved inop back to ToC or Object Property ToC

IRI: http://www.essepuntato.it/2011/02/argumentmodel/isInvolvedIn

An argumentation entity involved in the presentation of an argument.

has sub-properties
is backing inop, is claim inop, is evidence inop, is qualifier inop, is rebuttal inop, is warrant inop
is inverse of

is qualifier inop back to ToC or Object Property ToC

IRI: http://www.essepuntato.it/2011/02/argumentmodel/isQualifierIn

An sentence or word linked to an argument with the scope of qualifying the argument claim.

has super-properties
is inverse of

is rebuttal inop back to ToC or Object Property ToC

IRI: http://www.essepuntato.it/2011/02/argumentmodel/isRebuttalIn

An argumentative entity linked to an argument in which it is considered a rebuttal.

has super-properties
is inverse of

is valid unlessop back to ToC or Object Property ToC

IRI: http://www.essepuntato.it/2011/02/argumentmodel/isValidUnless

A claim that is restricted by a rebuttal of an argument.

has super-properties
has domain
has range
has sub-property chains

By means of the property chain defined, the assertion that links a claim to the relative rebuttal is automatically inferred starting from the high-level description of an argument (realized through the sub-properties of 'involves' and their inverse properties).

is warrant inop back to ToC or Object Property ToC

IRI: http://www.essepuntato.it/2011/02/argumentmodel/isWarrantIn

An argumentative entity linked to an argument in which it is considered a warrant.

has super-properties
is inverse of

leads toop back to ToC or Object Property ToC

IRI: http://www.essepuntato.it/2011/02/argumentmodel/leadsTo

has super-properties
has domain
has range
has sub-property chains

A warrant that points to a claim from the related evidence within an argument.

provesop back to ToC or Object Property ToC

IRI: http://www.essepuntato.it/2011/02/argumentmodel/proves

An evidence that founds a claim of an argument.

has super-properties
has domain
has range
has sub-property chains

By means of the property chain defined, the assertion that links an evidence to the relative claim is automatically inferred starting from the high-level description of an argument (realized through the sub-properties of 'involves' and their inverse properties).

relates toop back to ToC or Object Property ToC

IRI: http://www.essepuntato.it/2011/02/argumentmodel/relatesTo

An argumentation entity relates to another one in some way - for example, it is the evidence that is used to prove a claim of an argument.

has characteristics: symmetric

has sub-properties
backsop, forcesop, is valid unlessop, leads toop, provesop, supportsop
has domain
has range

supportsop back to ToC or Object Property ToC

IRI: http://www.essepuntato.it/2011/02/argumentmodel/supports

An evidence that supports a warrant of an argument.

has super-properties
has domain
has range

Annotation Properties

dc:creatorap back to ToC or Annotation Property ToC

IRI: http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/creator

dc:dateap back to ToC or Annotation Property ToC

IRI: http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/date

dc:descriptionap back to ToC or Annotation Property ToC

IRI: http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/description

dc:rightsap back to ToC or Annotation Property ToC

IRI: http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/rights

dc:titleap back to ToC or Annotation Property ToC

IRI: http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/title

Namespace Declarations back to ToC

default namespace
http://www.essepuntato.it/2011/02/argumentmodel/
cito
http://purl.org/spar/cito/
dc
http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/
owl
http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#
rdf
http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#
rdfs
http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#
xsd
http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#

This HTML document was obtained by processing the OWL ontology source code throughLODE, Live OWL Documentation Environment, developed bySilvio Peroni.