Argumentation is important in domains involving
imperfect information (such as uncertainty, incompleteness or inconsistency).
In these cases, being able to represent, generate
and compare arguments may provide useful support for human reasoning.
An argument can be viewed not only as a static structure to
organise support for and against a claim in order to justify decisions
and beliefs, but also as process engaged by conflicting parties, supporting
debate.
Our research focuses on the second approach. Formalising
this process involves not only generating the representation of an
argument, but also comparing several arguments through dialectical
moves, such as attacking, counter-attacking, supporting, enforcing and
defending. This is what we mean by dynamics.
We are currently investigating ways to capture and formalise the
dynamics of argumentation, and how it could support the development and
evaluation of models and specifications. Exploring arguments in this
context is worthwhile, since it can promote a better understanding
of the models, less ambiguous specifications and more convincing
explanations.
