The Argument Model Ontology (AMO)
type: Ontology
creator: Fabio Vitali
creator: Silvio Peroni
date: 2011-05-04
description: Nella maggior parte dei suoi lavori, Toulmin ha evidenziato come l'assolutismo (rappresentato da argomenti teorici o analitici) abbia un valore pratico limitato. L'assolutismo è derivato dalla logica formale idealizzata di Platone, che supporta pienamente la verità universale. Conformemente, gli assolutisti credono che le questioni morali possano essere risolte attraverso l'uso di ben stabiliti principi morali, in modo del tutto indipendente dal contesto. Contrariamente, Toulmin asseriscie che la maggior parte di questi così detti principi morali sono irrilevanti per le situazioni reali affrontate dagli esseri umani nella vita di tutti i giorni. Per dare più vigore a quest sua idea, Toulmin ha introdutto il concetto di campi argomentativi: in "The Uses of Argument (1958)", Toulmin afferma che alcuni aspetti dell'argomentazione variano da campo a campo e sono conseguentemente chiamati "dipendenti", mentre altri aspetti sono percepiti allo stesso modo in tutti i campi e vengono quindi chiamati "invarianti". Toulmin crede che il fallimento dell'assolutismo sia da amputare allo trascurare gli aspetti "dipendenti" dell'argomentazione; infatti l'assolutismo assume che tutti gli aspetti argomentativi siano "invarianti". Come conseguenza a queste critiche, Toulmin ha sviluppato un tipo differente di argomentazione, chiamato argomentazione pratica (anche conosciuto come argomentazione sostanziale). In contrasto con l'argomentazione teorica degli assolutisti, l'argomentazione pratica di Toulmin si focalizza sulla fuzione giustificativa dell'argomentazione, opposta alla funzione inferenziale dell'argomentazione teorica. Laddove l'argomentazione teorica produce inferenze sulla base di un insieme di principi per poi arrivare alla "pretesa", l'argomentazione pratica prima trova una "pretesa" di interesse per poi fornirne una giustificazione. Toulmin crede che il ragionamento sia meno un'attività di inferenza, che coinvolge l'identificazione di nuove idee, e più un processo di ver… @it
description: 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 ear…
rights: Questa ontologia è distribuita con licenza Creative Commons Attribution - http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0 @it
rights: This ontology is distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution License - http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0
title: Ontologia del Modello di Argomentazione @it
comment: L'Ontologia del Modello di Argomentazione è un'ontologia OWL 2 DL che permette la descrizione dell'apparato argomentativo conformemente alla teoria di Toulmin. @it
comment: The Argument Model Ontology is an OWL 2 DL ontology that allows to describe argumentation according to the 'Toulmin Model of Argument'.
version info: 1.0

backs
type: ObjectProperty
sub property of: relates to
sub property of: givesBackgroundTo
domain: backing
range: warrant
comment: A backing that attests the warrant of an argument.

forces
type: ObjectProperty
sub property of: relates to
sub property of: qualifies
domain: qualifier
range: claim
property chain axiom: is qualifier in
property chain axiom: has claim
description: 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).
comment: A qualifier that expresses as degree of force concerning a claim of an argument.

has backing
type: ObjectProperty
sub property of: involves
inverse of: is backing in
domain: argument
range: backing
comment: An argument includes a backing as one of its (optional) components.

has claim
type: ObjectProperty
sub property of: involves
inverse of: is claim in
type: FunctionalProperty
domain: argument
range: claim
comment: An argument includes a claim as one of its (mandatory) components.

has evidence
type: ObjectProperty
sub property of: involves
inverse of: is evidence in
domain: argument
range: evidence
comment: An argument includes an evidence as one of its (mandatory) components.

has qualifier
type: ObjectProperty
sub property of: involves
inverse of: is qualifier in
type: FunctionalProperty
domain: argument
range: qualifier
comment: An argument includes a qualifier as one of its (optional) components.

has rebuttal
type: ObjectProperty
sub property of: involves
inverse of: is rebuttal in
domain: argument
range: rebuttal
comment: An argument includes a rebuttal as one of its (optional) components.

has warrant
type: ObjectProperty
sub property of: involves
inverse of: is warrant in
domain: argument
range: warrant
comment: An argument includes a warrant as one of its (mandatory) components.

involves
type: ObjectProperty
inverse of: is involved in
domain: argument
range: Class
  union of: argumentation entity
  union of: qualifier
description: 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).
comment: An argument involves an argumentation entity (claim, evidence, warrant, backing, rebuttal) or a qualifier.

is backing in
type: ObjectProperty
sub property of: is involved in
comment: An argumentative entity linked to an argument in which it is considered a backing.

is claim in
type: ObjectProperty
sub property of: is involved in
comment: An argumentative entity linked to an argument in which it is considered a claim.

is evidence in
type: ObjectProperty
sub property of: is involved in
comment: An argumentative entity linked to an argument in which it is considered an evidence.

is involved in
type: ObjectProperty
comment: An argumentation entity involved in the presentation of an argument.

is qualifier in
type: ObjectProperty
sub property of: is involved in
comment: An sentence or word linked to an argument with the scope of qualifying the argument claim.

is rebuttal in
type: ObjectProperty
sub property of: is involved in
comment: An argumentative entity linked to an argument in which it is considered a rebuttal.

is valid unless
type: ObjectProperty
sub property of: relates to
sub property of: isDisputedBy
domain: claim
range: rebuttal
property chain axiom: is claim in
property chain axiom: has rebuttal
description: 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).
comment: A claim that is restricted by a rebuttal of an argument.

is warrant in
type: ObjectProperty
sub property of: is involved in
comment: An argumentative entity linked to an argument in which it is considered a warrant.

leads to
type: ObjectProperty
sub property of: relates to
sub property of: confirms
domain: warrant
range: claim
property chain axiom: is warrant in
property chain axiom: has claim
description: A warrant that points to a claim from the related evidence within an argument.
description: By means of the property chain defined, the assertion that links a warrant 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).

proves
type: ObjectProperty
sub property of: relates to
sub property of: isCitedAsEvidenceBy
domain: evidence
range: claim
property chain axiom: is evidence in
property chain axiom: has claim
description: 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).
comment: An evidence that founds a claim of an argument.

relates to
type: ObjectProperty
type: SymmetricProperty
domain: Class
  union of: argumentation entity
  union of: qualifier
range: argumentation entity
comment: 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.

supports
type: ObjectProperty
sub property of: relates to
sub property of: givesSupportTo
domain: evidence
range: warrant
comment: An evidence that supports a warrant of an argument.

argument
type: Class
subclass of: Class
  intersection of: Restriction
    on property: has evidence
    min cardinality: 1
  intersection of: Restriction
    on property: has warrant
    min cardinality: 1
  intersection of: Restriction
    on property: has claim
    cardinality: 1
comment: 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.

argumentation entity
type: Class
equivalent class: Class
  intersection of: Class
    union of: backing
    union of: claim
    union of: evidence
    union of: rebuttal
    union of: warrant
  intersection of: Restriction
    on property: is involved in
    some values from: argument
comment: An entity that takes part in an argument according to the 'Toulmin model of argument'.

backing
type: Class
equivalent class: Class
  intersection of: argumentation entity
  intersection of: Restriction
    on property: is backing in
    some values from: argument
comment: Sort of credentials that certifies the warrant - e.g., the OWL 2 document specifications.

claim
type: Class
equivalent class: Class
  intersection of: argumentation entity
  intersection of: Restriction
    on property: is claim in
    some values from: argument
comment: A fact that must be established - e.g., 'This is a consistent OWL ontology'.

evidence
type: Class
equivalent class: Class
  intersection of: argumentation entity
  intersection of: Restriction
    on property: is evidence in
    some values from: argument
comment: A fact that represents a foundation for the claim - e.g., 'This ontology was developed in OWL'.

qualifier
type: Class
equivalent class: Restriction
  on property: is qualifier in
  some values from: argument
comment: Words or phrases that express the degree of certainty of the claim such as “certainly”, “possible”, “probably”, “presumably”, etc.

rebuttal
type: Class
equivalent class: Class
  intersection of: argumentation entity
  intersection of: Restriction
    on property: is rebuttal in
    some values from: argument
comment: Restrictions that may be applied to the claim - 'Unless a reasoner for OWL 2 proves that it is not consistent'.

warrant
type: Class
equivalent class: Class
  intersection of: argumentation entity
  intersection of: Restriction
    on property: is warrant in
    some values from: argument
comment: A statement bridging from the evidence to the claim - e.g., 'An ontology developed in OWL is a consistent OWL ontology'.