2007/10/10 by Chris Reed, Gillian Rowe · 21 citations
Computer Science · Business, Management and Accounting · Engineering · #Multi-Agent Systems and Negotiation #Software Engineering Research #Business Process Modeling and Analysis #Argument (complex analysis) #Popularity #Context (archaeology) #Implementation #Computer science #Argument map #Data science #Common ground #Software #Epistemology #Software implementation #Management science #Sociology #Software engineering #Engineering #Political science #Argumentation theory #Geography
paper · pdf · doi:10.1093/lpr/mgm030
published in Law Probability and Risk 6(1-4), 59-85 (Oxford University Press)
openalex publication_date 2007/10/10 · openalex created_date 2025/10/10 · openalex updated_date 2026/07/02
There is a long history of argument diagramming mechanisms, attesting to the need for, and popularity of visualizations of reasoning patterns in general. Many of these approaches have given rise to software implementations that serve particular audiences with particular needs, leading to a plethora of such tools. Interesting research questions are posed when exploring the ground between these different approaches to diagramming, and these questions become operational challenges in the context of a research programme aimed at developing ‘pluralist’ argument diagramming software—a single tool that supports multiple different theoretical approaches to the analysis of argument. The Araucaria system aims to meet such pluralist goals, by allowing analysis to be conducted in different styles and then providing for translation between them. In this way, a potential is opened up for interchange between different communities.