ArguBlogging: An Application for the Argument Web
Floris Bexa , Mark Snaithb , John Lawrenceb , Chris Reedb,∗a University of Groningen, the Netherlandsb University of Dundee, UK

Abstract
In this paper, we present a software tool for ‘ArguBlogging’, which allows users to construct debate and discussions
across blogs, linking existing and new online resources to form distributed, structured conversations. Arguments
and counterarguments can be posed by giving opinions on one’s own blog and replying to other bloggers’ posts.
The resulting argument structure is connected to the Argument Web, in which argumentative structures are madesemantically explicit and machine-processable. We discuss the ArguBlogging tool and the underlying infrastructure
and ontology of the Argument Web.
Keywords: Argumentation, Semantic Web

1. Introduction
Blogging has become commonplace in the online
community as an open platform to share and discuss information and opinions. There are currently almost 60
million blogs on Tumblr alone1 and Blogspot/Blogger2
consistently ranks as one of the most visited sites on the
Web3 . Bloggers comment on and argue about a hugevariety of topics, from the newest video game to whoshould be the next president of the United States, andpopular blogs often have large numbers of vocal followers who comment on the opinions both expressed in theblog and also by other commenters.
As such, the blogging phenomenon (and the Web
as a whole) acts as an enabler of large-scale argumentation, where different views are constantly presented,
challenged, and evaluated by a large and diverse usergroup. However, what is currently not captured is the
explicit structure of argumentative viewpoints: opinions and discussions may be identified (or “tagged”) by
their topics, time, or participants but not the different
facts, opinions, and arguments and how they relate to∗ School of Computing, University of Dundee, DD1 4HN, UK

Email addresses: f.j.bex@rug.nl (Floris Bex),
marksnaith@computing.dundee.ac.uk (Mark Snaith),johnlawrence@computing.dundee.ac.uk (John Lawrence),
chris@computing.dundee.ac.uk (Chris Reed)
1 www.tumblr.com/about, 5-6-2012
2 www.blogger.com
3 www.google.com/adplanner/static/top1000/, 5-6-2012
Preprint submitted to Web Semantics

one another and, as such, contribute to the overall picture. Having such structure has the potential to enable
far better visualisation, navigation and analysis of a debate, and makes it easier to automate support for theargumentation process, for example, by discovering inconsistencies among arguments or by discovering synergies among disputants.
In this paper, we present4 and evaluate a softwaretool for ArguBlogging5 , which allows allows users toblog with linked, semantically rich argument data. Arguments and counterarguments can be posed by giving
opinions on one’s own blog and replying to other bloggers’ posts. The resulting argument structure is connected to the Argument Web, which is part of the Semantic Web [2]. Thus, these argument structures can befurther viewed and manipulated using the different toolsthat work with the Argument Web [3]. Furthermore,by supporting explicit debate-like moves, ArguBlogging users are gently encouraged to better structure andorganise their positions, thereby potentially raising theoverall quality of argumentation online.
Below, we first introduce the ArguBlogging tool andthe underlying Argument Web in an informal way,
through some examples. In section 4 we then look at thetool’s architecture, underlying infrastructure and ontology in more detail, and we briefly discuss a user evaluation of the tool.
4 The system presented here is a newly implemented systemloosely based on the earlier version presented in [1].
5 argublogging.com

February 19, 2014

argument data with software tools that make online debate intuitive for various audiences, including mediators, students, academics, broadcasters and bloggers.
With the Argument Web we aim to build an open, extensible and re-usable infrastructure for large-scale argument representation, manipulation, and evaluation, allowing for structured argument and debate whilst at thesame time tapping into the enormous user base of theWorld Wide Web.
One particularly topical issue in mid 2012 was the issue of Assad’s Syria and the morality of potential Western intervention10 . We can use this topic in creating an
example to illustrate the Argument Web. Say you search
the Web for arguments by asking the question ‘Should
we invade Syria?’. You find a number of arguments withlinks to their sources: a video of a press conference inwhich the UK prime minister says that Assad should beheld accountable for war crimes, a newspaper column
claiming that Syria is different from Iraq, an article that
explores the military feasibility of attacking Syria, andso on. You focus on the newspaper column, and thispage links to other arguments posted on the Web thatagree or disagree with the fact that ‘Syria is different
from Iraq’. One of the counterarguments, posted on aforum, states that the writer of the column is a ‘leftie’
who has no idea what the difference is between Syria
and Iraq is, or what real war is like for that matter. In
the same forum, another user disagrees with this argument, stating that ‘McCain is for intervention and he’s
not a leftie’.
In this way, the Argument Web makes it possible tofollow a line of argument across disparate fora, usercomments, professionally prepared editorials, multimedia resources and so on. Furthermore, at any time youcan express your agreement or disagreement with one ofthe points made and post your own linked reply on yourblog. Figure 1 visualises the small ‘web’ of argumentsfrom our example. Here, links tagged pro indicate thatone statement agrees with another statement, that is, thatone statement provides a reason for the other statement,
con links indicate that a counterargument is provided,that is, that one statement is a reason against anotherstatement. Note that statements and arguments can beon different web pages but that, for example, a counterargument can also be given on the same web page (as is
the case for the forum).
There are various tools for the Argument Web that
all offer different interaction styles for engaging in on-‘Should we
invade Syria?’
pro

pro
pro

‘Assad shouldbe held
accountable’
Press conference‘Syria is not
Iraq’
Newspaper Column‘Invasion is
militarily
feasible’Magazine article

con
con

‘Columnist
is a leftie’‘McCain is
not a leftie’

Forum

Figure 1: Linked Argument Data across different online sources

2. Introducing the Argument Web
The Web is as an ideal platform for enhancing critical debate, due to its ubiquity and openness. One ofthe drawbacks of existing technologies, such as forums,
blogs, Twitter and so on is that these methods do not
capture the structure of argumentative viewpoints explicitly. This makes the task of identifying, searchingand evaluating the relationships among arguments difficult. Recently, a number of tools have begun to offer
support for explicit argument and debate on the Web.
[4] discuss a wide variety of tools for visualizing6 , editing7 , annotating8 and searching9 arguments on the Web.
However, these tools are all self-contained, and the arguments represented in them cannot be interchanged.
For example, if one edits an argument in Debatepedia it
is not possible to subsequently visualise it in ArguNet.
The approach proposed by the Argument Web [2, 5, 3]
aims to provide infrastructure that supports argumentation in many different contexts and use cases by providing practical bridges between individual applications
and application domains, and by offering a coherent
ontology supported by a variety of search and display
tools. Thus, with the Argument Web, the structure ofarguments and debate is not captured on a separate,
specifically designed website. Rather, this structure is
URI-addressable: the Argument Web as a part of the Semantic Web, is offering a platform that combines linked
6 e.g. www.argunet.org
7 e.g. www.debatepedia.com
8 e.g. ova.computing.dundee.ac.uk
9 e.g. http://www.discoursedb.org

10 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syrian_civil_war

2

Figure 2: ArguBlogging widget rendered on a web pageline argument11 . For example, OVA12 can be used toannotate arguments on web sites, the AIFdb13 interface can be used to search and visualise arguments, andTOAST14 [3] can be used to evaluate arguments in the
Argument Web according to a logical calculus [6]. It
is further possible to upload and download argument
graphs in formats associated with third-party argument
visualisation and critical thinking tools such as Rationale15 and Carneades16 )Web with minimal effort on the part of the user. The variety of Argument Web tools can then be used to further
explore the more complex webs of opinions built using
ArguBlogging and other tools.
The ArguBlogging tool requires no local installation,
as it exists as a bookmarklet17 in the user’s browser.
Once the bookmarklet is installed from the ArguBlogging home page (argublogging.com), a can respondto an opinion on a web page by highlighting the relevant piece of text and clicking the bookmarklet. The
ArguBlogging widget is then rendered on the page, providing options with which to respond. In Figure 2, thewidget is rendered on top of an opinion column on a
possible invasion of Syria.
At the moment, the user can agree or disagree, causing the selected text to be highlighted in green or red,respectively. A large text field is available to give one’s
reasons for the agreement or disagreement; the smaller
text field allows for the input of a title for the blog post.
At the moment, the widget contains the ability to connect to two blogging platforms, Blogger and Tumblr.
Note that at the moment, the ArguBlogging tool uses
a simple dialogue model. Currently, only agreement anddisagreement can be expressed and it is not possible, forexample, to challenge the other party to give a reason for

3. ArguBlogging
Many of the existing tools for interfacing with the
Argument Web are geared towards specialist audiences(e.g. academic users interested in discourse and argument analysis). The same is true for a lot of the tools
discussed in [4]. With ArguBlogging the aim is to open
up the Argument Web to regular internet users with acritical view: bloggers. The ArguBlogging tool is built
so as to post arguments and link them to the Argument
11 http://www.argumentinterchange.org/library
12 ova.computing.dundee.ac.uk/
13 www.aifdb.org/
14 www.arg.dundee.ac.uk/toast/
15 rationale.austhink.com/
16 carneades.github.com

17 www.bookmarklets.com/about/

3

Figure 3: A blog post automatically constructed by ArguBlogging

sequence of replies as well as the argument that has been
built in the conversation as a diagram. In Figure 4, theconversation about whether Syria and Iraq are different
is shown19 . On the left, opinions are rendered as a sequential dialogue between the participants in the conversation; below each speech bubble a link to the original
source (opinion column, blog) is provided. On the rightthe argument based on this dialogue is rendered as a diagram. Here, green links represent pro links (reason for)and red links represent con links (reason against). The
first reply discussed in our example – the blog post that
America lied about WMD – is shown as a reason for theoriginal text from the newspaper column. Other bloggers have also engaged in the debate, arguing against
the statement that America lied and for the statementthat Iraq is not Syria.

her claim. The modular approach of the Argument Webmeans that other, more complex models of dialogue (see[7]) are easily integrated in the tools based on the Argument Web, including ArguBlogging. This future work
is further discussed in section 5.
Once the opinion is sent, the widget gives the user
the links to the blog post and the conversation view. A
typical blog post made using ArguBlogging is shown in
Figure 3.
Just below the title is the text that was replied to (inthis case the text selected in the opinion column) and thelink to the source. Below that is shown the blogger’s
conversational move (i.e. agree or disagree) together
with the blogger’s reasons for their opinion. There isalso a link to the full conversation. At the bottom of theblog post an ‘argue’ button is created. This button issimilar to the buttons which are often found on websites(e.g. ‘share on Blogger’, ‘share on Facebook’, ‘share on
Twitter’), as it allows one to respond to the blog post asa whole without having to select or copy the text in theblog. Clicking the button will bring up the ArguBlogging widget, and the text that is replied to is then theopinion of the blogger (in this case ‘The situation is different, the Americans openly lied about WMD in Iraq.’).
The ArguBlogging widget and blog posts created using ArguBlogging also provide a link to the conversation. This conversation includes all claims, opinions
and arguments that are somehow relevant to (i.e. linkedto) the opinion expressed in the blog post. Conversations can be viewed in the conversation view provided
by the Argument Web search engine18 , which shows a

4. Ontology, Infrastructure and Architecture
Now that we have informally discussed ArguBlogging on the Argument Web, we offer a bit more detailwith regards to the current underlying ontology and infrastructure of the Argument Web (section 4.1 and thearchitecture of the ArguBlogging tool (section 4.3).
4.1. The AIF Ontology
The Argument Web is based on a common ontology for argument that supports web-based interchangeof data, called the Argument Interchange Format (AIF)[5, 6], which is available in a number of machinereadable formats (RDFs, OWL/XML, RDF/XML and

18 www.AIFdb.org

19 www.arg.dundee.ac.uk/AIFdb/argview/750

4Figure 4: The Argument Web search engine, showing the conversation on the left and the argument map on the right.

SQL database schemas)20 . The AIF ontology places
at its core a distinction between information, such as
propositions and sentences and schemes, general patterns of reasoning which, when applied, provide the specific argumentative relations. These schemes allow us tomodel and incorporate typical patterns of human argumentation [8], such as for example ad hominem argument, an argument against the person. Another important distinction in the ontology is that between argument
structure, i.e. a static structure of statements that are reasons for or against conclusions (as in, he prepared an argument), and argument dialogue, a debate or discussion(as in, they had an argument).
Figure 5 shows an example of the linked data that
corresponds to the discussion in our example. The locutions on the right are part of the dialogue in which one
locution replies to another (shown in figure 4 as speech
bubbles). The information on the left side of the picture(which was shown as a graph in figure 4) is the argument that follows from the dialogue. The dialogue andthe argument are linked via nodes denoting the illocu-

tionary force of the speech act in the locution, such as
asserting or arguing. The illocutionary relation between
the Reply node and the support node in the argument ismore complex, as it represents the fact that it is in virtueof the fact that ‘The situation is different’ is responding
to ‘Syria is not Iraq’ that there is an inferential support
link here.
The detailed structure of linked data allows for theassessment of certain properties of argumentation thatare not captured by other, simpler models (such as [9]).
For example, in our model the felicity conditions of aspeech act can be made explicit as conditions on the illocutionary force, and these conditions can then be subject to critical questioning and counterarguments. Thus,
complex argmentative phenomena such as ad hominem
argumentation or misquotation are easily captured andanalyzed.
4.2. Argument Web Infrastructure and Architecture
The Argument Web is a large-scale deployment of
Semantic Web technology, which at the time of writing contained 1,250 different argument maps (see figure4) and more than 23,000 linked propositions (nodes).

20 www.arg.dundee.ac.uk/aif

5

information
Syria is not
Iraq.

locution
aif:Content

asserting

aif:Locution

aif:Content

arguing

aif:Locution

Reply

aif:endLocution

aif:Premise

information
The situation isdifferent

http://
www.guardian.co.uk/.../
syria-not-iraq-wrongintervene

aif:startLocution

aif:Conclusion

Support

aif:source“Syria is not
Iraq”

http://
florisargument.blogspot.com/.../syria-is-different-fromiraq.html

locution
aif:Content

asserting

aif:Locution

aif:source“The situation
is different”

Figure 5: Example of Linked Data on the Argument Web.

The Social Layer [11] provides an interface for applications to interact with both the Argument Web andsocial media sites. Data is received from applications
via a web service, and is processed into both AIF andformats suitable for publishing to different social media platforms. The social layer also provides for user
management, storing details of each registered user ofthe relevant tool (in this case ArguBlogging). Connections to the social media platforms are handled using
the OAuth 2.0 protocol, allowing secure access to user
blogs without the need for users to constantly provide
their usernames and passwords.

The Argument Web adopts a pragmatic approach to issues of infrastructure by specifying the ontology not
only in OWL and RDF, but also as an instance of a
relational database schema which can be implemented
in a range of databases such as MySQL. Thus, the Argument Web approach builds on highly scalable, mature, robust and commercially accepted database systems, whilst still conforming to the main principles anddemands of Linked Data: each piece of an argument isaddressable by a unique URI which stands in relationships to other URI-addressable information[10]. So an
entity in the Argument Web can be accessed both bystate-of-the-art Semantic Web technology (because it isexpressed in RDF) and by a range of web services written in PHP which allow for the addition and retrieval of
AIF components from the database to, for example, import and export argument data in a range of widely used
formats including Araucaria (AML), DOT, Carneades(LKIF), JSON, Rationale (RTNL) and SVG files. Furthermore, a middle layer exists which groups simple
web service queries, combining information about thestructure and rules of argumentative dialogues with participant data so that more complex queries - for example, a query to determine what reasons a dialogue participant has for a particular point - can be performed.

JSON
ARGUMENT WEB SOCIAL LAYER API

ARGUBLOGGINGINTERFACEUSER
MANAGEMENT

Blogger

OAUTH

TumblrJSON
ARGUMENT WEB MIDDLE LAYER API
DIALOGUE
CONTROL4.3. ArguBlogging Architecture

AML

DOT

QUERY
MANAGEMENT

LKIF

JSON

PARTICIPANT
MANAGEMENTRDF/OWL

RTNL

SVG

AIF WEB SERVICE INTERFACEThe ArguBlogging architecture (Figure 6) consists of
two main components: the user interface and the Argument Web Social Layer. The user interface (the widget) is a lightweight JavaScript application, accessed bya user from their web browser’s bookmarks bar. Data
from the bookmarklet is formatted as a JSON string
and posted to the web service interface of the Argument
Web Social Layer.

AIFDB

AIFDB

server platform

AIFDB

server platform

AIFDB

server platform

Figure 6: The ArguBlogging architecture

6

Adjunct
Ontology

Q1
Q2
Q3

very
difficult
0 (0%)
1 (7%)
0 (0%)

somewhatdifficult5 (33%)
3 (20%)
2 (13%)

neither difficult
nor easy
2 (13%)
1 (7%)
4 (27%)

somewhateasy
2 (13%)
4 (27%)
6 (40%)veryeasy
6 (40%)
6 (40%)
3 (20%)

avg. score (0-5)
3.6
3.73
3.67

Table 1: User scores for the usability of the ArguBlogging tool

ing what was meant by the ”bookmarks toolbar” (thebar of favourite bookmarks under the browser’s addressbar). Other users commented that bookmarklets might
do not work well on smartphones and tablets; this can be
remedied by developing an ArguBlogging app, which
we leave for the future. The respondent who indicated’very difficult’ for Q2 did not use bookmarks and would
have liked to be able to use ArguBlogging by copying
text and a URL to the tool. Two respondents who indicated ’somewhat difficult’ on Q1 and Q2 ran into technical problems which were related to the server, not thetool itself. This has probably influenced their ratings.
Finally, with respect to Q3, users remarked that while
the diagram (i.e. the conversation view, Figure 4) isa nice feature, is not very clear exactly what is represented.

4.4. ArguBlogging User Evaluation
Because ArguBlogging is specifically targeted at
non-academic end users we performed a relatively modest evaluation (15 users), asking respondents to rate andcomment on the usability of the tool. For this evaluation, the users were asked to go to argublogging.com
and install the bookmarklet. The users were then asked
to respond to some opinion online using the ArguBlogging tool. Finally, the users could express their findings
in a brief survey21 .
The survey starts by asking about the users’ backgrounds. The users have quite a lot of experience with
IT, with an average rating of 4.2 out of 5. Experience
with argument and debate is less (average rating 2.8
out of 4), with half of the respondents only having argued in an informal setting and the other half having
experience with debate in a formal setting (e.g. courtroom, academic). The experience with blogs is also average (rating 3 out of 5): about half of the users are
bloggers or have blogged before and the other half has
only read blogs; 1 user has never read or written for a
blog. Most users have expressed opinions online before:
stand-alone websites, forums, blogs and Twitter were allused in equal measure by various users. Two users indicated they had never expressed an opinion online.
There are three questions in the survey which ask
users to rate the difficulty of performing various actions
with the ArguBlogging tool on a scale of 1 to 5: (Q1)
Was it easy or difficult to configure Argublogging andget started?, (Q2) Were the Argublogging bookmarklet
and window easy or difficult to use? and (Q3) Did you
find it easy or difficult to view and respond to opinions
after they had been posted?. Table 1 shows the respondents’ answers and the average scores. Respondents canfurther comment on the strength and weaknesses of ArguBlogging in open questions.
On average, the respondents found the tool relatively
easy to use. The users almost consistently mentioned
the simplicity and ease of use as one of the strengthsof ArguBlogging. The difficulty of configuring ArguBlogging (Q1) was caused by four users not know-

When asked about the strengths and weaknesses of
ArguBlogging, users were generally positive about ArguBlogging’s simplicity and ability to react to any text
online with a single click. Furthermore, they lauded theability to link arguments across blogs and other media(news sites, forums), and the option to view connectedarguments as a diagram was generally well-received.
Not all users knew about or considered the wider implications of ArguBlogging’s connection to the Argument
Web. One user indicated that it would be interesting
to connect opinions across different blogs, and anotheruser indicated that it would be useful to have discussions about one topic on a single page instead of scattered across different blogs; the Argument Web makes
this possible, but one has to use the AIFdb search tool
instead of ArguBlogging.
When asked about features they would like to see, therespondents indicated that the option to vote for or rate
opinions (e.g. with a ’thumbs up’ or ’thumbs down’button) would be nice. A few users would have liked
to see Facebook and Twitter integration. This points
to what about half of the users indicated as the major
weakness of ArguBlogging, namely that it only posts toblogs. The reach of the tool and the wider Argument
Web could be increased if similar tools are available topost to Twitter or social networking sites. A few users
argued that such outlets would perhaps be more suited

21 http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/VLBWNW5

7

disagreeing one can challenge the other blogger to givefurther reasons for his claim). On the other hand, thismakes ArguBlogging not just a system for describing or
capturing online argumentative discourse, but also for
improving such discourse. The rules of a dialogue system, for example, might explicitly forbid attacks against
the person such as the one in Figure 4.1, allowing thedebate to focus on what is really at stake. Thus, ArguBlogging will help to further the normative goal of
the Argument Web, which is to bring a new kind of critical rationality to the Web.

to the relatively short arguments posted with the simple
ArguBlogging tool, as arguments on blogs tend to be
more expansive and go on for several paragraphs.
5. Conclusion and future work
In this paper we have presented a Semantic Web approach to blogging that focuses on critical argument anddebate, combining a rich ontology for describing argumentative and rhetorical structures with a flexible andextensible infrastructure for linked argument data.
By providing a simple bookmarklet and easy-to-use
interface, structured and semantically rich data can becollected from users in an unobtrusive way. In this way,
we aim to encourage the direct growth of the Argument
and Semantic Web, as opposed to the common methodof extracting structured semantic information from existing Web resources (DBpedia22 , for example, extracts
its information from Wikipedia). Preliminary evaluation suggests that this approach to metadata collection isappealing, and user feedback suggests that it would beparticularly appropriate to extend it to Argument Web
applications for Twitter and Facebook.
ArguBlogging builds on a foundation for semantic
blogging [12]. Hence, the connection argumentationand ontologies for social media, which was already explored in [9], can be easily made. The connection between blogs and semantically rich linked data opens up
new research possibilities in, for example, areas like
opinion mining and sentiment analysis. For example,
if we combine the information on the Argument Web
with information about social links (e.g. FOAF23 ), we
can determine whether groups of people have the same
opinions or agree with the same claims.
Currently, the ArguBlogging tool only allows for very
simple argumentative discourse: given a claim, one canagree or disagree. Current research is working on generalised processing of formal dialogue systems [7], which
provide rules for coherent dialogue that determine, forexample, when each party takes its turn or which typesof responses can be given to a claim or a question.
In [13], we propose a generic framework for capturing these dialogue systems, which is explicitly compatible with the AIF ontology. Hence, dialogue systems
expressed in the framework can be directly engineered
into the tools that connect to the Argument Web, including ArguBlogging. On the one hand, this allows for awider variety of argumentative moves (e.g. instead of

Acknowledgements
This work has been supported in part by the EPSRC
under grant EP/G060347/1. The authors would also liketo acknowledge the input and contributions from Simon
Wells to earlier versions of the ArguBlogging system.
References[1] S. Wells, C. Gourlay, C. Reed, Argument blogging, working Notes of the 9th International Workshop on Computational
Models of Natural Argument (CMNA 2009), Pasadena. (2009).
[2] I. Rahwan, Mass argumentation and the semantic web, Web Semantics 6 (1) (2008) 29–37.
[3] F. Bex, J. Lawrence, M. Snaith, C. Reed, Implementing the argument web, Communications of the ACM 56 (10) (2013) 66–73.
[4] J. Schneider, T. Groza, A. Passant, A review of argumentation
for the social semantic web, Semantic Web 4 (2) (2013) 159–
218.
[5] I. Rahwan, F. Zablith, C. Reed, Laying the foundations for aworld wide argument web, Artificial Intelligence 171 (10-15)(2007) 897–921.
[6] F. Bex, S. Modgil, H. Prakken, C. Reed, On logical reificationsof the argument interchange format, Journal of Logic and Computation 23 (5) (2013) 951–989.
[7] P. Mcburney, S. Parsons, Dialogue Games for Agent Argumentation, in: I. Rahwan, G. Simari (Eds.), Argumentation in Artificial Intelligence, Springer, 2009, Ch. 22, pp. 261–280.
[8] I. Rahwan, I. Banihashemi, C. Reed, D. Walton, S. Abdallah,
Representing and classifying arguments on the semantic web,
Knowledge Engineering Review 26 (4) (2011) 487–511.
[9] C. Lange, U. Bojars, T. Groza, J. Breslin, S. Handschuh, Expressing argumentative discussions in social media sites, in: Social Data on the Web (SDoW2008), Workshop at the 7th International Semantic Web Conference, 2008.
[10] A. Hogan, J. Umbrich, A. Harth, R. Cyganiak, A. Polleres,
S. Decker, An empirical survey of linked data conformance,
Journal of Web Semantics 14 (2012) 14–44.
[11] M. Snaith, R. Medellin, J. Lawrence, C. Reed, Arguers and theargument web, in: Proceedings of CMNA 2010-2013, Lecture
Notes in Artificial Intelligence, Springer, 2013, to appear.
[12] S. Cayzer, Semantic blogging and decentralized knowledge
management, Communications of the ACM 47 (12) (2004) 47–
52.
[13] F. Bex, C. Reed, Dialogue templates for automatic argument
processing, in: Proceedings of COMMA 2012, Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications, Vol. 245, IOS Press, 2012,
pp. 266–377.

22 dbpedia.org
23 www.foaf-project.org/

8