<?xml version="1.0" standalone="yes"?>
<Paper uid="C92-3136">
  <Title>ARGUING ABOUT PLANNING ALTERNATIVES</Title>
  <Section position="11" start_page="0" end_page="0" type="concl">
    <SectionTitle>
9 Conclusions
</SectionTitle>
    <Paragraph position="0"> Previous dialog models have focused primarily on recognising a participant's plans and goals. But to participate in an argument it's also necessary to recognize when participants are providing beliefs about their planl and goals and how they're justifying these beliefs. It's also necessary to be able to determine which beliefs require further justification and to formulate justifications for these beliefs. This paper suggests a knowledge-based approach for these tasks.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="1"> Our approach has several attractive features.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="2"> Firs L it builds It model of many relevant but unstated participant beliefs as a side-effect of trying to relate their utterance to the dialog. Second, it decides which belief to address in n response as a natural consequence of trying to understand why it disagrees with another participant's belief. Third, it understands belief jnstifieations using the same general, common-sense planning knowledge that it uses to formulate them. Finally, it suggests how never before seen belief justiflcatinns can be understood, so long as they were formed from general justification rules known to the participants. That ability is crucial for participating in dialogs whose participants hold differing beliefs.</Paragraph>
  </Section>
class="xml-element"></Paper>