Argumentation Ontology (arg)
Overview
IRI: https://w3id.org/contro/arg
Version: 0.7
Release: 12/03/2025
Last update: 16/06/2025
Authors: Alberto Ciarrocca, Francesca Massarenti
License: 
Available:
Description
An ontology for representing defeasible argumentation based on the ASPIC+ framework.
In this model, each Dialogical Agent participates in discourse with an individual Argumentation Theory, comprising a Knowledge Base and an Acceptance Attitude toward external arguments. From this theory, the agent can construct Arguments, each consisting of a set of Premises, an Inference Rule, and a resulting Conclusion.
The Conclusion of an Argument may Contradict another’s Premise, Inference Rule, or Conclusion, giving rise to an Attack relation. These are classified respectively as Undermining, Undercut, and Rebuttal Conflicts.
The ontology is designed to function with minimal annotation of Premises and Conclusions, and is compatible with the HermiT 1.4+ reasoner. A sample instance is available for demonstration purposes.
Bibliography
S. Modgil and H. Prakken. “A general account of argumentation with preferences.” Artificial Intelligence, vol. 195, 1 Feb. 2013, pp. 361–97, doi: 10.1016/j.artint.2012.10.008.
Namespaces
Classes
Acceptance Attitude
https://w3id.org/contro/arg#AcceptanceAttitude Equivalent to
- satisfies value Acceptance Attitude
Subclass of
- Argumentation Theory Situation
The attitude a dialogical agent holds toward the statement of another agent. Depending on their acceptance attitude, an agent may accept the premises and/or conclusion, respond with a counterargument, or ask for further grounds for a premise.
Acceptance Attitude
https://w3id.org/contro/arg#AcceptanceAttitude- satisfies value Acceptance Attitude
Equivalent to
- Argumentation Theory Situation
Subclass of
- Acceptance Attitude
In range of
- Object Property
- Individual
Also defined as
Antecedent
https://w3id.org/contro/arg#Antecedent Equivalent to
- satisfies value Antecedent
Subclass of
- Argumentation Theory Situation
One of the formulas that make up the first half of an inference rule, each expressing part of the condition for its application.
Antecedent
https://w3id.org/contro/arg#Antecedent- satisfies value Antecedent
Equivalent to
- Argumentation Theory Situation
Subclass of
Argument
https://w3id.org/contro/arg#Argument Equivalent to
- Conclusion some Situation
- satisfies value Argument
Subclass of
- Argumentation Theory some Situation
- Argumentation Theory Situation
- Inference Rule some Situation
- Premise some Situation
- Topic some Eventuality
A structure built from a set of premises, a conclusion, and an inference rule connecting them. It is generated by an agent's argumentation theory on the basis of their knowledge base.
Argument
https://w3id.org/contro/arg#Argument- Conclusion some Situation
- satisfies value Argument
Equivalent to
- Argumentation Theory some Situation
- Argumentation Theory Situation
- Inference Rule some Situation
- Premise some Situation
- Topic some Eventuality
Subclass of
Argumentation Theory
https://w3id.org/contro/arg#ArgumentationTheory Equivalent to
- satisfies value Argumentation Theory
Subclass of
- Acceptance Attitude some Situation
- Argumentation Theory Situation
- Dialogical Agent some Agent
- Knowledge Base min 0 Situation
An agent's argumentation theory is the combination of their knowledge base and acceptance attitude, relative to which arguments are generated and evaluated.
Argumentation Theory
https://w3id.org/contro/arg#ArgumentationTheory- satisfies value Argumentation Theory
Equivalent to
- Acceptance Attitude some Situation
- Argumentation Theory Situation
- Dialogical Agent some Agent
- Knowledge Base min 0 Situation
Subclass of
- Argumentation Theory
In range of
- Object Property
- Individual
Also defined as
Argumentation Theory Situation
https://w3id.org/contro/arg#ArgumentationTheorySituation Subclass of
- Situation
Argumentation Theory Situation
https://w3id.org/contro/arg#ArgumentationTheorySituation- Situation
Subclass of
Conclusion
https://w3id.org/contro/arg#Conclusion Equivalent to
- satisfies value Conclusion
Subclass of
- Consequent
The claim of an argument, following from its constituent premises and rule application. It may contradict another argument's premise, inference rule application or conclusion.
Conclusion
https://w3id.org/contro/arg#Conclusion- satisfies value Conclusion
Equivalent to
- Consequent
Subclass of
- Conclusion
In range of
- Object Property
- Individual
Also defined as
Conflict
https://w3id.org/contro/arg#Conflict Subclass of
- Argument
They can only target at fallible elements of an argument: their uncertain premises, their defeasible inferences, or the conclusions of their defeasible inferences.
Conflict
https://w3id.org/contro/arg#Conflict- Argument
Subclass of
- Rebuttal
- Undercut
- Undermining
Superclass of
Consequent
https://w3id.org/contro/arg#Consequent Equivalent to
- satisfies value Consequent
Subclass of
- Argumentation Theory Situation
The formula that makes up the second half of an inference rule and is inferred when the antecedents are satisfied.
Consequent
https://w3id.org/contro/arg#Consequent- satisfies value Consequent
Equivalent to
- Argumentation Theory Situation
Subclass of
Inference Rule
https://w3id.org/contro/arg#InferenceRule Equivalent to
- Consequent some Situation and
Antecedent min 0 Situation - satisfies value Inference Rule
Subclass of
- Argumentation Theory Situation
A way of drawing a conclusion from a set of premises. When applied in an argument, the antecedents of the rule serve as premises and the consequent as the conclusion. It may express a general principle of reasoning or encode domain-specific knowledge as a scheme in which the rule’s antecedents and consequent are formulas about a term (topic). Inference rules, together with premises, form part of the dialogical agent’s knowledge base.
Inference Rule
https://w3id.org/contro/arg#InferenceRule- Consequent some Situation and
Antecedent min 0 Situation - satisfies value Inference Rule
Equivalent to
- Argumentation Theory Situation
Subclass of
- Inference Rule
In range of
- Antecedent
- Consequent
Key properties
- Object Property
- Individual
Also defined as
Knowledge Base
https://w3id.org/contro/arg#KnowledgeBase Equivalent to
- satisfies value Knowledge Base
Subclass of
- Argumentation Theory Situation
The set of premises and inference rules available to an agent for constructing arguments.
Knowledge Base
https://w3id.org/contro/arg#KnowledgeBase- satisfies value Knowledge Base
Equivalent to
- Argumentation Theory Situation
Subclass of
- Knowledge Base
In range of
- Object Property
- Individual
Also defined as
Subclass of
- Antecedent
A formula that supports the conclusion of an argument. It may either be extracted from the knowledge base or derived as the conclusion of another argument.
- Antecedent
Subclass of
- Premise
In range of
- Object Property
- Individual
Also defined as
Rebuttal
https://w3id.org/contro/arg#Rebuttal- Conclusion some (contradicts some Conclusion)
Equivalent to
- Conflict
Subclass of
A rebuttal is a conflict that attacks an argument on its conclusion, providing an alternative one.
Undercut
https://w3id.org/contro/arg#Undercut- Conclusion some (contradicts some Inference Rule)
Equivalent to
- Conflict
Subclass of
An undercut is a conflict that attacks an argument on its inference rule.
Undermining
https://w3id.org/contro/arg#Undermining- Conclusion some (contradicts some Premise)
Equivalent to
- Conflict
Subclass of
An undermining is a conflict that attacks an argument on its premise.
Object Properties
Acceptance Attitude
https://w3id.org/contro/arg#AcceptanceAttitude Domain
- Situation
Range
- Acceptance Attitude
The attitude a dialogical agent holds toward the statement of another agent. Depending on their acceptance attitude, an agent may accept the premises and/or conclusion, respond with a counterargument, or ask for further grounds for a premise.
Acceptance Attitude
https://w3id.org/contro/arg#AcceptanceAttitude- Situation
Domain
- Acceptance Attitude
Range
- is Setting For
Subproperty of
- Class
- Individual
Also defined as
One of the formulas that make up the first half of an inference rule, each expressing part of the condition for its application.
- is Setting For
Subproperty of
- Class
- Individual
Also defined as
Argumentation Theory
https://w3id.org/contro/arg#ArgumentationTheory Domain
- Situation
Range
- Argumentation Theory
An agent's argumentation theory is the combination of their knowledge base and acceptance attitude, relative to which arguments are generated and evaluated.
Argumentation Theory
https://w3id.org/contro/arg#ArgumentationTheory- Situation
Domain
- Argumentation Theory
Range
- is Setting For
Subproperty of
- by o inverse(Dialogical Agent)
Superproperty of chain
- Class
- Individual
Also defined as
attacked by
https://w3id.org/contro/arg#attackedBy
attacked by
https://w3id.org/contro/arg#attackedBy- attacks
Inverse of
The non symmetric relation between two Arguments where the Conclusion of the first contradicts the Premise, Inference Rule, or Conclusion of the second.
- attacked by
Inverse of
- Conclusion o contradicts o inverse(Conclusion)
- Conclusion o contradicts o inverse(Inference Rule)
- Conclusion o contradicts o inverse(Premise)
Superproperty of chain
A shortcut between an Argument and the Dialogical Agent of the Argumentation Theory that generated it.
The claim of an argument, following from its constituent premises and rule application. It may contradict another argument's premise, inference rule application or conclusion.
- is Setting For
Subproperty of
- Inference Rule o Consequent
Superproperty of chain
- Class
- Individual
Also defined as
The formula that makes up the second half of an inference rule and is inferred when the antecedents are satisfied.
- is Setting For
Subproperty of
- Class
- Individual
Also defined as
contradicted by
https://w3id.org/contro/arg#contradictedBy
contradicted by
https://w3id.org/contro/arg#contradictedBy- contradicts
Inverse of
A non symmetric relation between two situations, where the first is logically incompatible with the second. When the contradicting situation is the Conclusion of an Argument, it gives rise to an Attack against any other Argument in which the contradicted entity appears as a Premise, an Inference Rule, or a Conclusion.
- contradicted by
Inverse of
The irreflexive relation between two arguments where the first attacks an attacker of the second.
Dialogical Agent
https://w3id.org/contro/arg#DialogicalAgent Domain
- Situation
Range
- Agent
- has Role value Dialogical Agent
An agent who takes part in a spoken or written interaction.
Dialogical Agent
https://w3id.org/contro/arg#DialogicalAgent- Situation
Domain
- Agent
- has Role value Dialogical Agent
Range
- is Setting For
Subproperty of
- Dialogical Agent o inverse(is alias of)
Superproperty of chain
- Individual
Also defined as
A Dialogical Agent draws the Premises, Inference Rule, and Conclusion necessary to build an Argument from their Knowledge Base.
- inverse(has member)
Subproperty of
- inverse(Conclusion) o Argumentation Theory o Knowledge Base
- inverse(Inference Rule) o Argumentation Theory o Knowledge Base
- inverse(Premise) o Argumentation Theory o Knowledge Base
Superproperty of chain
has member
https://w3id.org/contro/arg#hasMember A relation between a collection and the entities it comprises. Adapted from DOLCE, this version omits the restriction of Collection as domain, in order to avoid imposing DOLCE’s structural constraints on the Knowledge Base.
has member
https://w3id.org/contro/arg#hasMember- has Member
See also
A transitive relation between Arguments, where one Argument is a sub-argument of another if its Conclusion is used to derive a Premise of the other. If a sub-argument is defeated, the dependent argument is likewise considered defeated.
- Premise o inverse(Conclusion)
Superproperty of chain
An agent may hold a credulous, cautious or skeptical attitude depending on the degree of support they require to concede an opponent's statement.
- inverse(Dialogical Agent) o Acceptance Attitude
Superproperty of chain
A way of drawing a conclusion from a set of premises. When applied in an argument, the antecedents of the rule serve as premises and the consequent as the conclusion. It may express a general principle of reasoning or encode domain-specific knowledge as a scheme in which the rule’s antecedents and consequent are formulas about a term (topic). Inference rules, together with premises, form part of the dialogical agent’s knowledge base.
- is Setting For
Subproperty of
- Class
- Individual
Also defined as
Traces an alternative identity back to a Dialogical Agent.
The set of premises and inference rules available to an agent for constructing arguments.
- is Setting For
Subproperty of
- Class
- Individual
Also defined as
A formula that supports the conclusion of an argument. It may either be extracted from the knowledge base or derived as the conclusion of another argument.
- is Setting For
Subproperty of
- Inference Rule o Antecedent
Superproperty of chain
- Class
- Individual
Also defined as
What the argument is about, as opposed to what is being said about it. It can be understood as a term that appears in both the premises and the conclusion.
- is Setting For
Subproperty of
- Individual
Also defined as
An agent holds a certain acceptance attitude toward an opponent's statement depending on the conditions they require to not attack it.
- inverse(Acceptance Attitude) o inverse(Argumentation Theory) o attacks o Conclusion
Superproperty of chain
Individuals
Acceptance Attitude
https://w3id.org/contro/arg#AcceptanceAttitude Class
- Description
The attitude a dialogical agent holds toward the statement of another agent. Depending on their acceptance attitude, an agent may accept the premises and/or conclusion, respond with a counterargument, or ask for further grounds for a premise.
Acceptance Attitude
https://w3id.org/contro/arg#AcceptanceAttitude- Description
Class
- Object Property
- Class
Also defined as
Antecedent
https://w3id.org/contro/arg#Antecedent Class
- Description
One of the formulas that make up the first half of an inference rule, each expressing part of the condition for its application.
Antecedent
https://w3id.org/contro/arg#Antecedent- Description
Class
- Object Property
- Class
Also defined as
Argument
https://w3id.org/contro/arg#Argument Class
- Description
A structure built from a set of premises, a conclusion, and an inference rule connecting them. It is generated by an agent's argumentation theory on the basis of their knowledge base.
Argument
https://w3id.org/contro/arg#Argument- Description
Class
- defines Role Topic
- has Component Argumentation Theory
- has Component Conclusion
- has Component Inference Rule
- has Component Premise
Assertions
- Class
Also defined as
Argumentation Theory
https://w3id.org/contro/arg#ArgumentationTheory Class
- Description
An agent's argumentation theory is the combination of their knowledge base and acceptance attitude, relative to which arguments are generated and evaluated.
Argumentation Theory
https://w3id.org/contro/arg#ArgumentationTheory- Description
Class
- defines Role Dialogical Agent
- has Component Acceptance Attitude
- has Component Knowledge Base
Assertions
- Object Property
- Class
Also defined as
Conclusion
https://w3id.org/contro/arg#Conclusion Class
- Description
The claim of an argument, following from its constituent premises and rule application. It may contradict another argument's premise, inference rule application or conclusion.
Conclusion
https://w3id.org/contro/arg#Conclusion- Description
Class
- Object Property
- Class
Also defined as
Consequent
https://w3id.org/contro/arg#Consequent Class
- Description
The formula that makes up the second half of an inference rule and is inferred when the antecedents are satisfied.
Consequent
https://w3id.org/contro/arg#Consequent- Description
Class
- Object Property
- Class
Also defined as
Dialogical Agent
https://w3id.org/contro/arg#DialogicalAgent Class
- Role
An agent who takes part in a spoken or written interaction.
Dialogical Agent
https://w3id.org/contro/arg#DialogicalAgent- Role
Class
- Object Property
Also defined as
Inference Rule
https://w3id.org/contro/arg#InferenceRule Class
- Description
A way of drawing a conclusion from a set of premises. When applied in an argument, the antecedents of the rule serve as premises and the consequent as the conclusion. It may express a general principle of reasoning or encode domain-specific knowledge as a scheme in which the rule’s antecedents and consequent are formulas about a term (topic). Inference rules, together with premises, form part of the dialogical agent’s knowledge base.
Inference Rule
https://w3id.org/contro/arg#InferenceRule- Description
Class
- has Component Antecedent
- has Component Consequent
Assertions
- Object Property
- Class
Also defined as
Knowledge Base
https://w3id.org/contro/arg#KnowledgeBase Class
- Description
The set of premises and inference rules available to an agent for constructing arguments.
Knowledge Base
https://w3id.org/contro/arg#KnowledgeBase- Description
Class
- Object Property
- Class
Also defined as
Class
- Description
A formula that supports the conclusion of an argument. It may either be extracted from the knowledge base or derived as the conclusion of another argument.
- Description
Class
- Object Property
- Class
Also defined as
Class
- Role
What the argument is about, as opposed to what is being said about it. It can be understood as a term that appears in both the premises and the conclusion.
- Role
Class
- Object Property
Also defined as
Rules
Implicit Inference Rule
An argument that concludes B from A has the implicit rule that there exists an implication from A to B.
Premise(?arg, ?prem) ∧ Conclusion(?arg, ?conc) ∧ Antecedent(?rule, ?prem) ∧ Consequent(?rule, ?conc) → Inference Rule(?arg, ?rule)