This ontology is distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution License - http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0
The Argument Model Ontology is an OWL 2 DL ontology that allows to describe argumentation according to the 'Toulmin Model of Argument'.
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.
IRI: http://purl.org/spar/amo/Argument
IRI: http://purl.org/spar/amo/ArgumentationEntity
An entity that takes part in an argument according to the 'Toulmin model of argument'.
IRI: http://purl.org/spar/amo/Backing
Sort of credentials that certifies the warrant - e.g., the OWL 2 document specifications.
IRI: http://purl.org/spar/amo/Claim
A fact that must be established - e.g., 'This is a consistent OWL ontology'.
IRI: http://purl.org/spar/amo/Evidence
A fact that represents a foundation for the claim - e.g., 'This ontology was developed in OWL'.
IRI: http://purl.org/spar/amo/Qualifier
Words or phrases that express the degree of certainty of the claim such as “certainly”, “possible”, “probably”, “presumably”, etc.
IRI: http://purl.org/spar/amo/Rebuttal
Restrictions that may be applied to the claim - 'Unless a reasoner for OWL 2 proves that it is not consistent'.
IRI: http://purl.org/spar/amo/Warrant
A statement bridging from the evidence to the claim - e.g., 'An ontology developed in OWL is a consistent OWL ontology'.
IRI: http://purl.org/spar/amo/backs
A backing that attests the warrant of an argument.
IRI: http://purl.org/spar/amo/forces
A qualifier that expresses as degree of force concerning a claim of an argument.
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).
IRI: http://purl.org/spar/amo/hasBacking
An argument includes a backing as one of its (optional) components.
IRI: http://purl.org/spar/amo/hasClaim
An argument includes a claim as one of its (mandatory) components.
has characteristics: functional
IRI: http://purl.org/spar/amo/hasEvidence
An argument includes an evidence as one of its (mandatory) components.
IRI: http://purl.org/spar/amo/hasQualifier
An argument includes a qualifier as one of its (optional) components.
has characteristics: functional
IRI: http://purl.org/spar/amo/hasRebuttal
An argument includes a rebuttal as one of its (optional) components.
IRI: http://purl.org/spar/amo/hasWarrant
An argument includes a warrant as one of its (mandatory) components.
IRI: http://purl.org/spar/amo/involves
An argument involves an argumentation entity (claim, evidence, warrant, backing, rebuttal) or a qualifier.
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).
IRI: http://purl.org/spar/amo/isBackingIn
An argumentative entity linked to an argument in which it is considered a backing.
IRI: http://purl.org/spar/amo/isClaimIn
An argumentative entity linked to an argument in which it is considered a claim.
IRI: http://purl.org/spar/amo/isEvidenceIn
An argumentative entity linked to an argument in which it is considered an evidence.
IRI: http://purl.org/spar/amo/isInvolvedIn
An argumentation entity involved in the presentation of an argument.
IRI: http://purl.org/spar/amo/isQualifierIn
An sentence or word linked to an argument with the scope of qualifying the argument claim.
IRI: http://purl.org/spar/amo/isRebuttalIn
An argumentative entity linked to an argument in which it is considered a rebuttal.
IRI: http://purl.org/spar/amo/isValidUnless
A claim that is restricted by a rebuttal of an argument.
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).
IRI: http://purl.org/spar/amo/isWarrantIn
An argumentative entity linked to an argument in which it is considered a warrant.
IRI: http://purl.org/spar/amo/leadsTo
A warrant that points to a claim from the related evidence within an argument.
IRI: http://purl.org/spar/amo/proves
An evidence that founds a claim of an argument.
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).
IRI: http://purl.org/spar/amo/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
IRI: http://purl.org/spar/amo/supports
An evidence that supports a warrant of an argument.
IRI: http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/description
This HTML document was obtained by processing the OWL ontology source code through LODE, Live OWL Documentation Environment, developed by Silvio Peroni.
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.