Feedback from a presentation I did
Jarred McGinnis
This week I presented a report on the AIF's Budapest meeting to our
research group.
http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/groups/ssp/group2005.htm
This is a weekly meeting to present current work of the members. It
went well and the audience seemed receptive. Below is a list of their
concerns which I thought might be of interest to this forum as the
voice of the devil's advocate.
1) Why would other argumentation researchers adopt the AIF when this
person would be knowledgeable enough to read a conference or journal
paper about a popular framework and just adopt his/ her work to that
framework? Another person put it this way. No one is going to change
their framework to fit a standard if it only results in more work for
them without increased uptake of their tool. The AIF must guarantee
that the individual developer stands to gain by its use. Perhaps this
is also another reason for the problems the BIF effort faced.
2)A big problem facing agency, in general, is a lack of use cases and
data. (i.e. No more auctions, please.) What might aid the uptake of the
AIF is the development of these.
3)There is a danger of the AIF just being syntax. Instead of the
top-down diagram, maybe it would be better to define the atomic
concepts. If these cannot be agreed to everyone's satisfaction then
maybe it is possible to agree on a common language for defining those
terms.
4)It seems the communication of arguments is a secondary concern or at
worse a distraction to the development of an AIF. Maybe the
argumentation community is content to pack the arguements into the
content of existing performatives, and the definition of locutions or
protocols is unnecessary. In particular, it would be good to hear from
other researchers who sit in both camps (argumentation and agent
communication).
All the best,
Jarred
Jarred McGinnis
http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/groups/ssp/group2005.html
It is a link to the abstract and other talks that have been held for
our group.