IMPACT (FP7-ICT-2009-4; No. 247228) – Document D8.1 – Proceedings of the Final Conference 1

Integrated Method for Policy making using Argument modelling and

Computer assisted Text analysis

FP7-ICT-2009-4 Programme

Grant Agreement Number 247228 Project Start date: 01.01.2010 Project End date: 31.12.2012 Report No. D8.1 – Proceedings of the Final Conference Version – 1.0 Document prepared by: Fraunhofer Contributors:

1 – Fraunhofer Fokus 2 – Zebralog 3 – Universiteit van Amsterdam 4 – University of Leeds 5 – University of Liverpool 6 – User Interface Design

Deliverable due date: 31.12.2012 Deliverable actual date: 10.1.2013

Document History Date Revision Comments 10.1.2013 1.0 Added front matter to the proceedings

IMPACT (FP7-ICT-2009-4; No. 247228) – Document D8.1 – Proceedings of the Final Conference 2

Participant List

Short Name

Organisation Name Country

1 Fraunhofer Fraunhofer Gesellschaft Germany 2 ZlG Zebralog Germany 3 UvA University of Amsterdam Netherlands 4 UnivLeeds University of Leeds UK 5 ULIV University of Liverpool UK 6 UID User Interface Design GmbH Germany

Summary This deliverable contains the proceedings of the final, public conference of the IMPACT project, which took place on 17 December 2012 at the University of Amsterdam. The conference was organized as a "workshop" in conjunction with the International Conference on Legal Knowledge and Information Systems (Jurix 2012). An interdisciplinary group of about 30 persons attended the workshop, including ad-ministrators from government agencies, research scientists developing methods and tools for applying computational models of argument to support policy deliberations and practitioners who make their living reconstructing and visualizing policy debates.

Proceedings of a

Workshop on Argumentation Technology for Policy

Deliberations

held at

Faculty of Law University of Amsterdam

17 December 2012 In conjunction with:

The 25th International Conference on Legal Knowledge and Information Systems (Jurix 2012)

Sponsored by:

FP7-ICT-2009-4 Programme, IMPACT Project, Grant Agreement Number 247228.

1

The Workshop on Argumentation Technology for Policy Deliberations will present the results of the European FP7 IMPACT Project, along with invited talks by leading developers and users of argumentation tools for supporting public participation in policy deliberations on the World-Wide-Web.

Conference Organizers • Trevor Bench-Capon (University of Liverpool, UK)

• Tom Gordon (Fraunhofer FOKUS, Berlin, Germany)

2

Program

Opening

• 9.00 Registration

• 9.15 Welcome and Introduction

Argument Structure, Construction and Evaluation

• 9.30 Chris Reed, "The Argument Web: Tools, Techniques and its Potential Role in Policy Deliberations"

• 10.00 Jochem Douw, "State of the ART – The Argument Reconstruction Tool of the IMPACT Toolbox"

• 10.30 Tom Gordon, "Modeling Policy Proposals and Comparing Their Effects in Specific Cases"

11.00-11.30 Coffee Break

Argument Visualisation

• 11.30 David Price, "Visualising Public Policy"

• 12.00 Ann Macintosh and Neil Benn, "The argument visualisation tool in the IMPACT toolbox"

12.30-1.30 Lunch

3

Applications

• 1.30 Ralf Grötker, "Design rationale for argument mapping applications: criteria and evidence from use cases"

• 2.00 Gregor Betz, "Mapping the Geoengineering Controversy - A Case of Argument-Analysis-Driven Policy Deliberation"

• 2.30 Steffen Albrecht, "Argumentation Technology as Empowerment of the Users - Application Scenarios"

3.00-3.30 Tea Break

Collective Intelligence

• 3.30 Ann de Liddo, "The Evidence Hub as a Collective Intelligence Platform for Policy Deliberations"

• 4.00 Trevor Bench-Capon, Adam Wyner and Katie Atkinson, "The Structured Consultation Tool in the IMPACT Project Toolbox"

• 4.30 Silke Lotterbach and Daniel Kersting, "The IMPACT Toolbox: Individual Workflows Under One Roof"

Closing

• 5.00-5.30 Discussion

• 5.30 Close

4

Overview of the Impact Project and this Workshop

Thomas F. Gordon Fraunhofer FOKUS, Berlin

For some years now there has been considerable discussion and research on "e-democracy" or "e-participation", about ways to use the Internet and, in particular, the World-Wide Web to revitalize democracy, overcome political apathy and improve the quality, inclusiveness and transparency of governance and policy-making. The first generation of e-participation systems were customized versions of various kinds of collaborative software ("groupware"), such as discussion forums, polls, and wikis. More recently there have been attempts to leverage existing social networks, such as Facebook, Google+ and Twitter for e-participation purposes. While these approaches provide ways for citizens to voice their concerns and provide input to the policy-making process, they do not scale well as the level of participation increases. Imagine a EU-wide policy discussion, with 27 states, 23 official languages, and over 500 million citizens.

The European IMPACT project, which ran from 2010 to 2012, investigated ways to complement existing e-participation and other social media platforms to help citizens, and government officials, to obtain a concise overview of the substance of the policy debates taking place on these platforms. The goal of the project was to make it easier to identify and understand the issues, proposed policies, the pros and cons of these policies and the collective assessment of stakeholders about the truth of claims and the relative importance or weight of conflicting considerations. The Workshop on Argumentation Technology for Policy Deliberations, held in conjunction with the 25th International Conference on Legal Knowledge and Information Systems (JURIX 2012), at the University of Amsterdam, presents the results of the IMPACT project along with invited talks by several of the leading developers and users of argumentation technology for supporting policy deliberations on the Internet. The following application scenario illustrates the use of the kind of argumentation technology investigated in the IMPACT project to support wide-scale deliberations, such as the 2008 deliberations of the European Green Paper1 on Copyright in the Knowledge Economy.2

1. The EU publishes the Green Paper, in PDF, on its web site and invites stakeholders, such as libraries and publishers in the case of copyright, but also "ordinary" citizens, to submit comments by uploading a PDF file to the site. 2. The EU publishes the comments on their web site, as they are received. 3. In parallel, the issues raised in the Green Paper are discussed informally across the Internet, in discussion forums, on social networks, in online newspaper or blog articles, and in comments on these articles. 4. As the discussion proceeds, trained analysts employed by the EU, either as regular staff or as free-lancers, use argumentation technology to reconstruct the arguments in a representative sample of the source documents, including both

1 http://europa.eu/documentation/official-docs/green-papers/index_en.htm 2 http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2008:0466:FIN:EN:PDF

5

officially submitted comments and articles found elsewhere on the Internet, to build an argument graph. 5. In parallel, data-driven journalists3, hired by media companies and NGOs, can use argumentation technology to construct their own, competing argument graphs of the debate to be offered as value-added content on the Web. 6. The argument graphs constructed by the analysts and data-journalists are published on the Web, providing citizens with high-level overviews of the ongoing-debate along with references (links) to source documents. The references enable anyone to check the accuracy and completeness of the argument graphs and provide easy access to further, more detailed information. 7. For policy proposals which are detailed enough to be modeled as rules, the EU analysts can use argumentation technology to create and publish policy models enabling stakeholders to evaluate the effects of each policy on the cases which interest them. Users could contribute, via the web site, benchmark cases they think require special consideration and share these cases with others on the Web. 8. After sufficient time has passed to allow for an in-depth discussion of the issues and the reconstruction of the arguments in an argument graph, the opinion formation and polling tools use argument models to obtain informed feedback from citizens about their opinions of the claims and arguments. Several polls can be conducted, at regular intervals, depending on the duration of the official EU procedure for the public deliberation of the Green Paper. 9. At the end of the discussion period, the EU analysts use argumentation tools to generate an outline of the results of the deliberation which can be processed further using word processing software.

Six talks are given by members of the Impact project. Steffen Albrecht will describe the scenarios in some more detail. As part of the IMPACT project a suite of four tools has been developed. Each of these are described in talks given as part of this workshop. The Argument Reconstruction Tool intended to support steps 4 and 5 will be described by Jochem Douw. The Argument Visualisation Tool designed to support step 6 will be described by Ann Macintosh and Neil Benn. Step 7 is supported by the Policy Modelling Tool, which I will describe. The Structured Consultation Tool, described by Adam Wyner and his colleagues, supports step 8. The integration of these tools into a single toolbox will be described by Silke Lotterbach and Daniel Kersting. These project related talks are set in a wider context of policy making by five invited speakers.

3 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_driven_journalism

6

Abstracts The Argument Web: Tools, Techniques and its Potential Role in Policy Deliberations Chris Reed, University of Dundee

Computational approaches to argument have enjoyed impetus from mathematical modelling, particularly graph theory, from software engineering and practical development, from distributed AI, and increasingly now also from computational linguistics. Perhaps inevitably, this wide range of backgrounds has led to a field that has at times been disparate and at risk of fragmenting even before it has come together. On the other hand, the success of meeting series such as COMMA4, ArgMAS5 and CMNA6, special issues of all the major journals7, and the establishment of the Journal of Argument and Computation8 all point to academic problems of substantial depth, relevance and vitality.

One of the key problems is bringing tools and techniques together so that advances in one area can give impetus in another; so that resources which are expensively created can be reused in multiple projects; so that theoretical claims can be empirically validated; and so that academic results can be deployed to practical advantage. This is the vision of the Argument Web, which provides the infrastructure by which linguistic, AI, mathematical, legal, philosophical and other models of argument can come together. Several different teams are then developing ways of interacting with the Argument Web for update, visualisation, dialogue, evaluation and more, making academic results applicable in many different domains.

State of the ART – The Argument Reconstruction Tool of the IMPACT Toolbox Jochem Douw, University of Amsterdam

The Argument Reconstruction Tool is one of the components of the IMPACT toolkit, designed to support users in reconstructing arguments from internet resources. There are two basic aims of the ART which we will discuss in this talk. Firstly, manual reconstruction of arguments using a variety of argumentation schemes needs to be supported. We created a tool that enables users to instantiate a number of different argument schemes in a user-friendly way. The resulting arguments are stored in such a way that the Structured Consultation Tool can make consultations based on these arguments without any translation or conversion. Furthermore, it is relatively easy to add new argument schemes when they are seen as necessary for particular purposes. And finally there is an export function to the Argument Visualisation Tool so that people can visualise the arguments they have modelled at any time during the process.

4 Computational Models of Argument: a conference held in alternate years since 2006. 5 Argument in Multi-Agent Systems: a workshop held in conjunction with the annual AAMAS conferences. 6 Computational Models of Natural Argument: a workshop held annually in conjunction with a leading AI conference. 7 Including Artificial Intelligence in 2007. 8 First published 2010.

7

A second goal we tried to achieve was (semi-)automated support for modelling arguments to support the above mentioned manual reconstruction. We will present the outcomes of various experiments in automated analysis within the test domain (namely reactions to EU green papers about copyright). The results show that automated analysis is unfortunately not feasible with these texts. One of the reasons is that the variety in usage of language was too large, despite the fact that the texts were very to-the-point and therefore contained relatively few implicit assumptions and indirect formulations.

Modeling Policy Proposals and Comparing Their Effects in Specific Cases Tom Gordon, Fraunhofer FOKUS, Berlin

This presentation provides an overview of the policy modeling tool developed in the IMPACT project, which provides clear explanations, using argument graphs, of the different effects of alternative policies in particular cases. The policy modeling tool is an interactive web application based on a new version of the Carneades argumentation system9, with a relational database backend. The tool can be also be used as a legal expert system shell, for example in applications for helping citizens to assess their rights to social benefits, but goes further than rule-based systems currently used in practice towards realizing the vision of "isomorphic modeling" of legislation, by being based on the state-of-the-art in the field of Artificial Intelligence and Law.

Visualising Public Policy David Price, DebateGraph.org

This presentation, given by one of the co-founders of DebateGraph10, illustrates some of the ways in which DebateGraph is being used in a public policy context, and reflects on the insights arising from this experience.

The Argument Visualisation Tool in the IMPACT Toolbox Ann Macintosh and Neil Benn, Centre for Digital Citizenship, Institute of Communications Studies, University of Leeds The Argument Visualisation Tool (AVT) in the IMPACT Toolbox displays arguments about policies as browsable debate maps where users can browse the maps and follow links from the visual summaries of the arguments back to the source policy document. The AVT, based on the Cohere system from the Open University11, has been extended to include various types of visualizations. Firstly, we have introduced Issue Maps to support usability and readability of large consultations by providing a realistic entry point for new users so that they can quickly gain an overview of the issues and

9 See, e,g, Gordon, Thomas F. 2010. An Overview of the Carneades Argumentation Support System. In Dialectics, Dialogue and Argumentation.   An   Examination   of   Douglas   Walton’s   Theories   of   Reasoning, Christopher W. Tindale and Chris Reed (Eds.), College Publications. pp. 145-156 and Gordon, Thomas F. 2012. The Carneades web service. In Computational Models of Argument – Proceedings of COMMA 2012 B. Verheij, S. Szeider, and S. Woltran, (Eds.), IOS Press, Amsterdam. pp. 517–518. 10 http://debategraph.org/home 11 See e.g. Buckingham Shum, Simon (2008). Cohere: Towards Web 2.0 Argumentation. In: Proc. COMMA'08: 2nd International Conference on Computational Models of Argument, IOS Press, Amsterdam.

8

contributions so far submitted, providing the ability to browse maps at different levels of granularity. Issue Maps, based on the work of Ben Shneiderman12, use colour-coded rectangular blocks to depict issues within the debate. The different sizes of the rectangles indicate the comparative number of arguments associated with each issue and clicking on a rectangle takes the user to the arguments addressing that issue. Secondly, we have introduced sophisticated layout algorithms for Argument Network Maps with typical interactions such as zooming, panning, and showing/hiding certain parts of the visualization. These argument network maps support transparency and sense-making by linking arguments not only to their source text but also back to the issue they address in the consultation document. Thirdly, within the argument network maps we have introduced pop-up text boxes to provide the justification for the arguments. These justifications are based on a “practical   reasoning”   argumentation  scheme13. To conclude, the AVT supports the work of relevant stakeholders, including policy analysts, interest groups and the general public by enabling them to navigate through arguments contained in consultation documents.

Design rationale for argument mapping applications: criteria and evidence from use cases Ralf Grötker, Debattenprofis.de

During the past few years, I have used argument mapping in a range of different contexts, including online deliberation, stakeholder dialogue/expert consultation, conference documentation, and internal communications for interdisciplinary research. In all projects, I used pre-existing software and applications, as the focus was on social design, not software development. Social design includes such things as: setting the right incentives for people to participate; enabling meaningful interaction between participants and facilitators or researchers; and embedding argument maps in content-rich web-pages.

This presentation shows examples of projects within each of the mentioned context-categories. I will argue that any design rationale for argument mapping should give high priority to context-specific social design, including not only psychological dimensions of usage but also those aspects that go along with the necessity of shaping a business case for argument mapping. In closing, I will summarize which features and technical standards, from experience with past projects, seem to me to be most important for argument mapping applications.

Mapping the Geoengineering Controversy - A Case of Argument-Analysis-Driven Policy Deliberation Gregor Betz, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology

In this talk, I will present how we have used argument mapping methods and technologies for scientific policy advice in the context of climate policies, specifically concerning so-called climate engineering options (CE). Argument mapping has been an integral part of a couple of projects, which include the scoping studies for the German Ministry on Education and Research, the EU project EuTRACE, and the new DFG priority 12 See http://www.cs.umd.edu/~ben/publications.html 13 Katie Atkinson, Trevor J. M. Bench-Capon, (2007). Practical reasoning as presumptive argumentation using action based alternating transition systems. Artificial Intelligence 171 (10-15): pp. 855-874

9

program on CE. While argument analysis and mapping initially served as way to structure the complex moral controversy about CE, it has been gradually used as a more general tool (i) to bring interdisciplinary research and heterogeneous pieces of evidence together, (ii) to assist decision-makers in adopting a coherent position, (iii) to empirically assess the ongoing societal discourse, and (iv) to inform the public.

Some material I'm will comment on is available online:

• CE Argument Map and its underlying report14

• BMBF Scoping Report15

• CE Movies16

Argumentation Technology as Empowerment of the Users - Application Scenarios Steffen Albrecht, Zebralog, Berlin

Almost ten years ago, Ann Macintosh17 outlined the scope of e-participation as encompassing three levels of participation: to enable participation, to engage with citizens and to empower citizens. The underlying claim was that e-participation should not only address the interests of policy makers, but also those of the citizens. This was also the intention at the start of the IMPACT project: not to develop yet another e-participation platform, but to develop tools that help policy makers as well as citizens to make sense of on-going debates about public policy and the arguments raised in them.

Moving from a dedicated platform to a suite of tools has implications for the usage scenarios as well as for our understanding of e-participation. This presentation will discuss the different ways the IMPACT tools can foster e-participation in policy-making. From state-of-the-art policy consultations to forms of open participation like debates in social media spaces, four classes of scenarios are presented that have been developed in cooperation with stakeholders from public administration, civil society organisations and other potential users of the tools. Furthermore, the implications of these scenarios for future forms of e-participation are discussed.

The Evidence Hub as a Collective Intelligence Platform for Policy Deliberations Ann de Liddo, Knowledge Media Institute of the Open University

In this talk we present a Collective Intelligence approach to harvesting the evidence needed to support policy in Open Education. We present a tool, called the Evidence Hub18, which provides an infrastructure for the Open Education community to collect and discuss examples and data of effectiveness of specific policies and practices. Community members can present issues and solutions. Each solution can then be

14 http://digbib.ubka.uni-karlsruhe.de/volltexte/1000026042 and http://digbib.ubka.uni-karlsruhe.de/volltexte/1000028245 15 http://www.kiel-earth-institute.de/scoping-report-climate-engineering.html 16 http://youtu.be/1ETYgACfK6Y 17 http://ics.leeds.ac.uk/people/ann-macintosh/ 18 http://www8.open.ac.uk/about/open-educational-resources/oer-projects/oer-evidence-hub

10

argued for by sharing evidence in favour or against it. Finally specific pieces of data or resources can be used to back the evidence up. By using a simplified IBIS model the Evidence Hub enables argumentative knowledge construction around specific policy issues and aims to provide the community with a space for structured debate and policy makers with community-generated and evidence-based knowledge to support decision making. We will describe the Evidence Hub concepts and features, present figures on user engagement, and discuss the results of initial user testing. We will also show through examples how content can be seeded into the Evidence Hub, and illustrate the way in which it has captured exemplars identified by a particular community, the OER Advocacy group. Finally we will discuss general issues and future strategies for building effective Collective Intelligence platforms for Open Education and other evidence-based practice fields (such as health visiting and research by children and young people).

The Structured Consultation Tool in the IMPACT Project Toolbox Adam Wyner, Trevor Bench-Capon and Katie Atkinson, University of Liverpool

An important aspect of e-democracy is consultation, in which policy proposals are presented and feedback from citizens is received and assimilated so that these proposals can be refined and made more acceptable to the citizens affected by them. We present an innovative web-based application that uses recent developments in argumentation, in particular argumentation schemes, to provide intelligent support for opinion gathering by eliciting a structured critique within a highly usable system. The tool is integrated into the IMPACT Project toolbox as the Structured Consultation Tool.

Argumentation schemes are patterns of reasoning that presumptively justify defeasible conclusions. The argumentation schemes used as the basis for our tool are the Practical Reasoning (PR) scheme for justifying the choice of an action, the Credible Source (CS) scheme for justifying a statement, and a Value Recognition (VR) scheme for judging the relevance of a social value19. The schemes are interlinked: the CS and VR schemes are used to justify statements found in the PR scheme. The tool is made up of a database that represents the components of each of the schemes along with SQL queries to the database; the data in the database can be provided by the Argument Reconstruction tool of the toolbox, or entered directly. The information retrieved from the database is served to the user as statements in a readable format. The user can click on radio buttons in the web-interface to indicate whether she agrees or disagrees with the given statement, and the results are stored in the database. Thus the user is presented with yes/no questions: although these questions are related to the underlying schemes, the user need have no awareness or understanding of the schemes. Because these questions derive from the schemes, however, the schemes can be used to assimilate, organise and relate these responses. The summarised results (number of particular responses with respect to the number of users) can be exported to and presented in the Argument Visualisation tool of the toolbox.

19 See, e.g. Adam Zachary Wyner, Katie Atkinson, Trevor J. M. Bench-Capon (2011). Towards a Structured Online Consultation Tool. In Proceedings of ePart 2011: 286-297

11

The IMPACT Toolbox: Individual Workflows Under One Roof Silke Lotterbach and Daniel Kersting, User Interface Design, Ludwigsburgh

The prototype of the IMPACT Toolbox allows the access of all four IMPACT tools from one access point, a Rich Internet Application (RIA). Therefore the toolbox is the basis for the project concerning system architecture, user interface design as well as the implementation of the toolbox prototype to bring together the individual tools. To ensure that the tools work well together it is vital to have a common understanding about these aspects between all partners. Within the presentation we look at the software engineering and design aspects of the toolbox.

12

Biographical Notes Dr. Steffen Albrecht, Zebralog, Berlin Dr. Steffen Albrecht is an e-participation expert working at Zebralog GmbH & Co. KG, Berlin. He studied sociology at the University of Hamburg and Hamburg University of Technology and had post-doc positions at the Free University of Berlin and Dresden University of Technology. He is interested in how ICT changes society and everyday social practices in various fields, both from a practical as well as scientific perspective.

Dr. Katie Atkinson, University of Liverpool Dr. Katie Atkinson is a Senior Lecturer in the Department of Computer Science at the University of Liverpool. Her first degree is in Computer Information Systems and she also has a PhD in Computer Science, both of which she studied for at the University of Liverpool. She was appointed Lecturer in Computer Science in 2005 and became a Senior Lecturer in 2011. Her research interests are focused around the topic of computational argumentation, with a particular focus on persuasive argumentation in practical reasoning and its application in a variety of domains including agent systems, law and e-democracy.

Prof. Trevor Bench-Capon, University of Liverpool Trevor Bench-Capon read Philosophy and Economics at St John's College Oxford, where he also took a D.Phil. He worked for six years in the Department of Health and Social Security, in policy and computer branches, before going to Imperial College, London to research into logic programming applied to legislation. He was appointed lecturer in Computer Science at the University of Liverpool in 1987, Senior Lecturer in 1992, Reader in Computer Science in 1999, and Professor of Computer Science in 2004. He retired September 2012, and is now an Honorary Visiting Professor in the Department. He remains interested in all aspects of advanced informatics systems, particularly their application to law. Current focus is on dialogue and argument.

Prof. Dr. Gregor Betz, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology Gregor Betz is Juniorprofessor for philosophy of science at the Karlsruhe Institute of Technology, where he leads a research group on the methodology of energy scenarios. In recent years, he has developed the so-called theory of dialectical structures. In a couple of recent papers and a book (Debate Dynamics : How Controversy Improves Our Beliefs, Synthese Library), he applied these argumentation theoretic methods to problems of epistemology and philosophy of science. Gregor Betz has co-initiated the Argunet project and is still active in improving the argument mapping software.

Jochem Douw, University of Amsterdam Jochem Douw has been a researcher at the Leibniz Center for Law for over a year. He has a bachelor in Artifical Intelligence and a master in Artificial Intelligence and Law. His master's thesis was about modelling legal verdicts in order to check their logical consistency, thereby especially focussing on the balance between open and closed world assumptions. After his graduation he joined the Leibniz Center for Law and

13

continued to work on argumentation technology there by working on the Argument Reconstruction Tool in the IMPACT project.

Prof. Dr. Thomas F. Gordon, Fraunhofer FOKUS, Berlin Prof. Dr. Thomas F. Gordon is a senior scientist at the Fraunhofer Institute for Open Communications Systems (FOKUS) in Berlin and holds an honorary professorship in argumentation technology at the University of Potsdam. Since 1983, he has been conducting applied and interdisciplinary research in legal informatics and related fields, including Artificial Intelligence and Law, Computational Models of Argument, eGovernance and eParticipation. Prof. Gordon has academic degrees law and computer science, having received a Juris Doctor (J.D.) in 1982 from the University of California, Davis, a Dr. rer. nat. in informatics in 1993 from the Technical University of Darmstadt, and a habilitation qualification in intelligent systems in 2012 from the Technical University of Berlin, with a habilitation thesis entitled "Foundations of Argumentation Technology".

Dr. Ralf Groetker, Debattenprofis.de Dr. Ralf Groetker is Science Editor of the weekly newspaper Der Freitag and works as a social-science writer for the economy magazine Brand Eins, the German edition of the MIT-magazine Technology Review and others. Areas of interest include collective decision making and knowledge management. Since 2010, he has offered facilitation and consultation with the help of argument mapping. In this context, he founded Debattenprofis.de – a platform for open expertise with the help of argument maps. Ralf was Journalist in Residence at the Max Planck Institute for the Study of Societies and the Social Science Research Center Berlin in 2006 and Fellow at the International Research Center Work and Human Lifecycle in Global History (re:work) in 2010/2011. He holds a Ph.D. in Philosophy (Ethics).

Daniel Kersting, User Interface Design, Ludwigsburg Daniel Kersting is working as Software Engineer at User Interface Design GmbH (UID). Within the IMPACT project work he focuses on the design and implementation of the Impact Toolbox system architecture. Daniel Kersting studied Computer Sience at Eberhard Karls Universität, Tübingen. Before his time at UID, Daniel worked as a partner of Ilimitado OHG and as a freelancer for software services.

Dr. Anna De Liddo, Open University Dr. Anna De Liddo is research associate at the Knowledge Media Institute of the Open University (Milton Keynes, United Kingdom). Her research focuses on the socio-technical factors influencing the design and uptake of Online Deliberation and Collective Intelligence infrastructures. These are online systems which seek to improve collective awareness of the changing environment, and collective capacity to make sense of complex issues, particularly with regards to collaborative decision-making processes in the Environmental and Urban Planning domain. She has a particular interests in knowledge construction through discourse, and the role of technology in scaffolding dialogue and argumentation in contested domains. Anna co-chaired the CSCW 2012 Collective Intelligence workshop, and co-organized the ODET 2010: Online Deliberation Emerging Tools workshop, co-located with the Fourth International Conference on Online Deliberation

14

Silke Lotterbach, User Interface Design, Ludwigsburg Silke Lotterbach is working as Team Manager of User Experience Design at User Interface Design GmbH (UID). Within projects she focuses on usability and user experience of enterprise and Web applications. Silke Lotterbach studied Communication Studies at Napier University, Edinburgh and Information Design at Hochschule der Medien (HdM), Stuttgart. She is a member of the German Usability Professionals’  Association.  Before  her  time  at  UID  Silke  worked  at  5gestalten GmbH as well as for Fraunhofer IAO and the Visualisation Research Center, Stuttgart (VISUS).

Professor Ann Macintosh, University of Leeds Professor Ann Macintosh is Professor of Digital Governance and co-director of the Centre of Digital Citizenship at the University of Leeds. Her work in digital governance is both applied and conceptual; the aim is not simply to design applications using new media, but to understand the changing nature of citizenship and governance in a networked society. She has acted as a specialist advisor for the OECD, the UN and the Commonwealth Secretariat. In 2009 she was awarded an Honorary Doctorate from Örebro University, Sweden for recognition of her work in eParticipation, in particular the interplay between humans, technology and governance.

Dr. David Price, DebateGraph.org David Price co-founded DebateGraph in 2006, with the former Australian Cabinet Minister  Peter  Baldwin,  and  has  led  DebateGraph’s  work  with,  amongst  others,  the  UK  Prime  Minister’s  Office,   the   European  Commission, the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, CNN and the UK Foreign & Commonwealth Office. David has a Ph.D. in Organizational Learning from University of Cambridge, and is a Fellow of the Royal Society of Arts.

Prof. Chris Reed Chris Reed is Professor of Computer Science and Philosophy at the University of Dundee in Scotland, where he heads the Argumentation Research Group. Chris has been working at the overlap between argumentation theory and artificial intelligence for over a decade, has won over £1.2m of funding from Research Councils UK, government and commercial sources and has over 120 peer-reviewed papers in the area including five books. He has also been instrumental in the development of the Argument Interchange Format, an international standard for computational work in the area; he is spear-heading the major engineering effort behind the Argument Web; and he is a founding editor of the Journal of Argument and Computation.

Dr. Adam Wyner, University of Liverpool Adam Wyner has a Ph.D. in Linguistics from Cornell University in 1994, writing on the syntax and semantics of adverbial modification. He was a lecturer in Linguistics at Bar Ilan University, Israel, from 1995-2001. In 2001, he moved to the UK to undertake a second Ph.D. in Computer Science from King's College, London, which he earned in 2008 with a thesis on deontic concepts for electronic contracting. He has worked on the ESTRELLA and IMPACT Projects at the University of Liverpool as Research Associate; these projects focussed on legal informatics for public administration. He is interested in computational argumentation, deontic concepts, text analysis, legal case-based reasoning, ontologies, and the logic-language interface.

15

Impact Project Publications Albrecht, Steffen, 2012. E-Consultations: A Review of Current Practice and a Proposal for Opening Up the Process in Proceedings of Electronic Participation - 4th IFIP WG 8.5 International Conference, ePart 2012. Springer-Verlag, LNCS 7444: 13-24 Atkinson, Katie, Trevor Bench-Capon, Dan Cartwright, and Adam Wyner. 2011. Semantic Models for Policy Deliberations. In Proceedings of the Thirteenth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law (ICAIL 2011), New York: ACM: 81-90. Atkinson, Katie, Trevor Bench-Capon, and Adam Wyner. (2012): Opinion gathering using computational models of argument. In: Proceedings of the Eleventh International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (AAMAS 2012), Valencia, Spain: 1171-1172. Ballnat, Stefan, and Thomas F Gordon. 2010. Goal Selection in Argumentation Processes †” A Formal Model of Abduction in Argument Evaluation Structures. In Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Computational Models of Argument (COMMA), ed. Guillermo Simari,. Amsterdam: IOS Press: 51-62. Benn, Neil, and Ann Macintosh. Investigating Visual Languages for Argument Mapping. In Working Notes of the Narrative and Hypertext Workshop at the 22nd ACM Conference on Hypertext and Hypermedia, 2011. Eindhoven. Benn, Neil, and Ann Macintosh. 2011. Argument Visualization for eParticipation: Towards a Research Agenda and Prototype Tool. In Electronic Participation: Proceedings of Third IFIP WG 8.5 International Conference, ePart 2011, ed. E. Tambouris, Ann Macintosh, and H. Bruijn, Berlin: Springer-Verlag: 60-73. Benn, Neil, and Ann Macintosh. 2011. Using PolicyCommons to Support the Policy Consultation Process: Investigating a New Workflow and Policy-Deliberation Data Model. In Proceedings of the Workshop on Modeling Policy-Making (MPM 2011) in conjunction with the 24th International Conference on Legal Knowlege and Information Systems (JURIX 2011). Benn, N. and Ann Macintosh. (2012) PolicyCommons – Visualizing Arguments in Policy Consultation. . Fourth IFIP WG 8.5 International Conference, ePart 2012 Germany: Springer-Verlag. LNCS 7444: 61-72. Benn, Neil and Ann Macintosh. (2012) Making Sense of Macro- and Micro-Argumentation in Policy-Deliberation: Visualisation Techniques and Representation Formats. Computational Models of Argument: Proceedings of COMMA 2012. Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications Series, IOS Press, Amsterdam. Bex, Floris, Gordon, T., Lawrence, J., and Reed, C. (2012). Interchanging arguments between Carneades and AIF. In Computational Models of Argument: Proceedings of COMMA 2012. B. Verheij, S. Szeider, and S. Woltran, Eds., pp. 390–397. Brewka, Gerhard, and Thomas F Gordon. 2010. Carneades and Abstract Dialectical Frameworks: A Reconstruction. In Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Computational Models of Argument (COMMA),. Amsterdam: IOS Press: 3-12. Gordon, Thomas F. (2010). An Overview of the Carneades Argumentation Support System. In Dialectics,  Dialogue  and  Argumentation.  An  Examination  of  Douglas  Walton’s  Theories of Reasoning, ed. Christopher W. Tindale and Chris Reed, College Publications: 145-156. Gordon, Thomas F. (2011). Combining Rules and Ontologies with Carneades. In Proceedings of the 5th International RuleML2011@BRF Challenge, ed. Stephano Bragaglia, Carlos Viegas Damasio, Marco Montali, Charles Petrie, Alun Preece, Mark Proctor, and Umberto Straccia, 799: CEUR Workshop Proceedings: 103-110. urn:nbn:de:0074-799-C. Gordon, Thomas F, and Douglas Walton. (2011). A Formal Model of Legal Proof Standards and Burdens. In 7th Conference on Argumentation of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation (ISSA 2010), ed. Franz van Emeren, Bart Garssen, J. Anthony Blair, and Gordon R. Mitchell, Amsterdam: Sic Sac: 644-655. Gordon, Thomas F. (2011). The Policy Modeling Tool of the IMPACT Argumentation Toolbox. In Proceedings of the Jurix Workshop on Modelling Policy-Making (MPM 2011): 29-38. http://wyner.info/research/Papers/JURIXMPMWorkshop2011.pdf Gordon, T. F., (2012). The Carneades web service. In Computational Models of Argument: Proceedings of COMMA 2012, B. Verheij, S. Szeider, and S. Woltran, Eds., IOS Press, pp. 517–518.

16

Gordon, T. F., and Douglas Walton, (2012),. A Carneades Reconstruction of Popov v Hayashi. Artificial Intelligence and Law 20, 1: 37–56. doi:10.1007/s10506-012-9120-0 Grabmair, Matthias, Thomas F Gordon, and Douglas Walton. (2010). Probabilistic Semantics for the Carneades Argument Model Using Bayesian Belief Networks. In Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Computational Models of Argument (COMMA 2010), ed. Guillermo Simari, Amsterdam: IOS Press: 55-266. Pulfrey-Taylor, S., E. Henthorn, Katie Atkinson, Adam Wyner, and Trevor Bench-Capon. (2011). Populating an Online Consultation Tool. In Legal Knowledge and Information Systems (JURIX 2011), ed. Katie Atkinson, Amsterdam, The Netherlands: IOS Press: 150-154. Walton, Douglas. and Gordon, T. F. (2012). The Carneades model of argument invention. Pragmatics & Cognition, 20(1):1–31. Wyner, A., Engers, T. van, and Bahreini, K. From policy-making Wyner, Adam, Tom van Engers, and Kiavash Bahreini. (2010). From Policy-Making to Statements in First-Order Logic. In Electronic Government and the Information Systems Perspective (EGOVIS 2010), Berlin: Springer-Verlag: 47-61. Wyner, Adam, and Tom van Engers. (2010). A framework for enriched, controlled on-line discussion forums for e-government policy-making. In Electronic Government and Electronic Participation, ed. Jean-Loub Chappelet, Oliver Glassey, Marijn Janssen, Anne Macintosh, Jochen Scholl, Efthimios Tambouris, and Maria Wimmer, Linz, Austria: Trauner Verlag: 357-364. Wyner, Adam, and Trevor Bench-Capon. (2010). Visualizing Legal Case-Based Reasoning Argumentation Schemes. In Proceedings of the JURIX 2010 Workshop on Modelling Legal Cases and Legal Rules, 43-52. Wyner, Adam, Trevor Bench-Capon, and Katie Atikinson. 2011. Towards Formalising Argumentation about Legal Cases. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law (ICAIL 2011), 1-10. Wyner, Adam, Katie Atkinson, and Trevor Bench-Capon. (2011). Towards a Structured Online Consultation Tool. In Electronic Participation: Proceedings of Third IFIP WG 8.5 International Conference (ePart 2011), Berlin: Springer: 286-297. Wyner, Adam, Katie Atkinson, and Trevor Bench-Capon. (2011). Semantic Models and Ontologies for Modelling Policy-Making. In Proceedings of the JURIX 2011 Workshop on Modelling Policy Making (MPM 2011). Vienna, Austria. Wyner, A., Atkinson, K. and Bench-Capon, T. (2012): Towards a formal language for argumentation schemes. In Proceedings of the Ninth International Workshop on Argumentation in Multi-Agent Systems (ArgMAS 2012), Valencia, Spain: 203-222 Wyner, A., Schneider, J., Atkinson, K., and Bench-Capon, T. (2012): Semi-Automated Argumentative Analysis of Online Product Reviews. In: Proceedings of Computational Models of Argument (COMMA 2012), IOS Press, Amsterdam: 43-50. Wyner, A., Atkinson, K., and Bench-Capon, T. (2012): Critiquing Justifications for Action Using a Semantic Model: Demonstration. In: Proceedings of Computational Models of Argument (COMMA 2012), IOS Press, Amsterdam: 503-504. Wyner, A., Atkinson, K. and Bench-Capon, T. (2012): Model based critique of policy proposals. In: Proceedings of Electronic Participation - 4th IFIP WG 8.5 International Conference, ePart 2012, Springer-Verlag, LNCS 7444: 120-131.