Agentlink AIF TFG: Draft Agenda / Presentations

[Steven Willmott]

Dear all,

I'm just preparing the agenda for the event. Just to let you know
that we have Thursday morning [15th Sept], 1 hour before lunch +
the afternoon Friday [16th Sept]. The plan is carry out discussions
as follows below.

Below the agenda please find the list of possible presentations,
please let me know if there need to be changes and/or talks
added or removed. Try to take 5mins maximum for presentation and
expect 5mins of questions - the aim is that attendees read
contributions BEFORE attending.

Please therefore take a look at submitted inputs here:
http://www.x-opennet.org/aif/inputs.php. If you cannot attend
the event please feel free to send comments to the list
[see http://groups.google.com/group/Agent-Argumentation]
ahead of time.

===============================================

THURSDAY 15th
-------------
09.15-11.00: Introduction & Opening Presentations

* 15mins: Overview of AIF background and Objectives +
Revision of the Agenda.
Steven Willmott

* 5-10minute individual presentations per submitted
input (see below). With a rapporteur selected to
keep track of requirements mentioned, methods mentioned
etc.

* Summary Classification of inputs.

11.00-11.15: COFFEE

11.15-13.00: Brainstorming and Scope

* Listing / Classification of Key Requirements

* Listing / Classification of Key possible approaches
to individual elements of the problem: Syntax / Semantics /
Use Cases. (Possibly in groups)

* Discussion on choices to be made and how to
make them.

14.00 Onwards.

* Possible out-of-session work on identified work
items by willing parties.

FRIDAY 16th
-----------
12.00-13.00: Summary and Discussion Session I

* 15mins: Summary of previous day's results and interim
work. Presentation of draft "roadmap" for ongoing work
for the reminder of the meeting and beyond.

* Brief discussion of roadmap.

* Discussion on one specific area (e.g. syntax, semantics,
protocols, use cases etc.) with a rapporteur taking notes.

13.00-14.30: LUNCH

14.30-16.00: Discussion Session II

* Discussion on one specific area (e.g. syntax, semantics,
protocols, use cases etc.) with a rapporteur taking notes.
(possibly in groups)

16.00-16.15: COFFEE

16.15-18.15: Discussion III and Wrap Up

* Continuation of discussion as required.

* Discussion of revised roadmap.

* Conclusions from each area of technical discussion.

* Wrap up.

===============================================

Presentations I guess we will have are listed below:

# "Short Position Statement: Suggestions for an Argument Interchange
Format" [PDF], Iyad Rahwan (The British University in Dubai, UAE).
# "Notes on Use Cases and Technology Sources For Agent Argumentation
Interchange Format" [PDF] Steven Willmott (Universitat Politècnica de
Catalunya, Spain).
# "A Sketch Proposal for Structures to be used in an Agent Argument
Interchange Formation based on existing Agent Communication Languages
and XML/RDF Syntax" [PDF] Steven Willmott, (Universitat Politècnica de
Catalunya, Spain), John Fox (Cancer Research UK, UK), Chris Reed
(University of Dundee, UK).
# "A somewhat analogous case: the BIF initiative" [PDF] Gerrard
Vreeswijk, (University Utrecht), Sanjay Modgil (Cancer Research UK, UK),
Matthew South (Cancer Research UK, UK.)
# "Eliciting Requirements for an Argumentation Interchange Format" [PDF]
Sanjay Modgil (Cancer Research UK), M. South (Cancer Research UK), G.
Vreeswijk (University Utrecht, Netherlands), D. Grecu (Cancer Research UK).
# "On the Role of Protocols in an Argument Interchange Format" [PDF]
Dave Robertson, Jarred McGinnis, Chris Walton (University of Edinburgh).

If there is anybody else that would like a slot please let me know
as soon as possible (even if its to stand up and just verbally give
some opinions!). I know that neither of the following can attend:

# "An Argumentation Core Ontology As the Centerpiece of a Myriad of
Argumentation Formats" Bart Verheij (University of Groningen).
# "The concept of argument" David Hitchcock (McMaster University).

hence i will do my best to summarise thee inputs on the day (unless
there is another presenter available).

Many thanks and best regards,
ideas and comments welcome!

steve.

[g...@cs.uu.nl]

Dear participants of AIF TFG-"a" on Arguments,

As we agreed in the AIF meeting in Budapest, I coordinate and collect the
inputs of AIF TFG-"a" on Arguments ontology/AIF (Group Carlos, Sanjay,
Chris, Guillermo, and others).

1) Please send me a short personal report of what you think we have agreed
upon in the two offline meetings on Thurday afternoon and Friday morning.

*) Preferably in ASCII, if necessary in LaTeX (the AIF TFG agreed
format for the strawman document)

*) Please send me your short and brief personal report

*********** Sept. 22. at the latest. *************

2) I will collect the results and draw the two diagrams that we agreed
upon at the end of Friday morning. (Basically the diagrams that Chris
drew on the flip-over at Friday morning.)

3) Then I will circulate an integrated report (4-5 pages), asking for
comments.

4) I will adapt the report (including the diagrams) based on your comments
and send it to the coordinator of the AIF strawman document.

AIF/TFG participants who were not at the offline meeting but want to give
input are welcome to do so. If you have any questions or comments, please
let me know.

Thank you!

Looking forward to your contribution,
with the best regards,

Gerard Vreeswijk
Utrecht University

[g...@cs.uu.nl]

Dear participant of AIF TFG-"a" on Arguments,

Just a gentle reminder to the participants of AIF TFG-"a" on Arguments to
send me this week some text to influence my notes of the meeting on
argument ontology and IF.

Those that already send their notes are thanked for their input.

I am very happy with the result thus far. Over the weekend I will prepare
something which I will send to you to review and comment next monday.

Thank you.

Gerard Vreeswijk

---------------------------- Original Message ----------------------------
Subject: Agentlink AIF TFG: request for mailing personal report of TFG-a:
Arguments
From: gv@localhost
Date: Fri, September 16, 2005 5:45 pm
To: agent-arg...@googlegroups.com
"Sanjay Modgil" <s...@acl.icnet.uk>
"Bart Verheij" <b.ve...@ai.rug.nl>
"Dave Robertson" <d...@inf.ed.ac.uk>
"Jarred McGinnis" <j.p.mc...@sms.ed.ac.uk>
"Gerard Vreeswijk" <g...@cs.uu.nl>
"Chris Reed" <chris...@computing.dundee.ac.uk>
"RAHWAN Iyad" <iyad....@buid.ac.ae>
hitc...@mcmaster.ca
"Juan Carlos Nieves" <jcni...@lsi.upc.edu>
"Pancho Tolchinsky" <tolch...@lsi.upc.edu>
"Ulises Cortes" <i...@lsi.upc.edu>
"Simon Parsons" <par...@sci.brooklyn.cuny.edu>
g...@cs.uns.edu.ar
m...@acl.icnet.uk
c...@eps.udl.es
Cc: gv@localhost
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

[g...@cs.uu.nl]

Dear participant of AIF TFG-"a" on Arguments,

please find enclosed the input section for the larger strawman document as
promised. The document is short which inevitably means that I have done
wrong on some input.

I still hope you will find the time to comment on the document and the
diagrams in it before

Tuesday October 4th 2005.

You will find further information inside the document.

Thank you!

Gerard Vreeswijk

[Matt South]

ok, that's shorter then I was expecting but it does accurately represent
the results of the discussions, to my mind. However, I think section 3
needs some more in it and I think it would benefit from a real-world
example (good old tweety?) to accompany the more abstract example. The
abbreviations (IIS, IA, IP etc) need to be made explicit, either in this
section or in Figure 1. Finally the 2nd paragraph's last sentence
should read "For example, I-node1 is supported by two IA-nodes and
attacked by zero IP-nodes".

I include a first cut tweety example graph for the group's demolition, a
copy of the text file with my typo fix and a tweaked version of the
semantics graph. I tweaked the semantics graph because I found the
merged edges in the bottom right corner confusing.

Matt

[Iyad Rahwan]

Hi All,

I've attached my thoughts to add to Gerard's draft.

Cheers,
Iyad


--
---------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Iyad Rahwan | Honorary Fellow
Institute of Informatics | School of Informatics
British University in Dubai | University of Edinburgh
P.O.Box 502216 Dubai, UAE | United Kingdom
Tel: +971-4-3671959 |
email: ira...@acm.org
web: http://homepages.inf.ed.ac.uk/irahwan/
---------------------------------------------------------

[g...@cs.uu.nl]

Simon,

>
> It is still the 4th October (just)...
>
That is totally okkay.

Thank you for your encouragement.

I am just in the middle of processing Iyad's suggestions (do away with
binary as Chris suggested; think about labelling nodes with acceptability
status; semantics of the arrows; table)

Also I am taking efforts to ensure that in the last version the acronyms
and labellings are consistent this time :-)

Oh, about examples. I am also proponent of examples. Usually they get
better the point across than a theoretical definition, say.
The paradox that it is harder to construct an elaborate example than to
stipulate a bunch of theoretical definitions.

So I'd welcome examples :-)

Gerard

[g...@cs.uu.nl]

> Dear all,
>
> Some more thoughts on the latest draft from Gerard,

Thanks Chris, I am processing these now.

[g...@cs.uu.nl]

Dear Chris, all,

> I remain convinced that edge types can be inferred directly from the
node > types they
> connect.

Of course. Witness my own database tables i should have known better :-)

Gerard