argumentation_schemes/
types.rs

1//! Foundational types for argumentation schemes.
2
3/// Unique identifier for a scheme in a catalog.
4///
5/// IDs are assigned per category via the offset constants in
6/// [`crate::catalog`]. Within a category, IDs are sequential.
7#[derive(Debug, Clone, Copy, PartialEq, Eq, Hash)]
8pub struct SchemeId(pub u32);
9
10/// Category of argumentation scheme. Used for catalog filtering.
11#[derive(Debug, Clone, Copy, PartialEq, Eq, Hash)]
12pub enum SchemeCategory {
13    /// Knowledge-based: expert opinion, witness testimony, position to know.
14    Epistemic,
15    /// Cause and effect: cause to effect, correlation, sign.
16    Causal,
17    /// Action-oriented: consequences, values, goals, waste.
18    Practical,
19    /// Attacking the source: ad hominem, bias, credibility.
20    SourceBased,
21    /// Social proof: popularity, tradition, precedent.
22    Popular,
23    /// Structural reasoning: analogy, classification, commitment.
24    Analogical,
25}
26
27/// What role a premise slot plays in the scheme.
28#[derive(Debug, Clone, Copy, PartialEq, Eq, Hash)]
29pub enum SlotRole {
30    /// A person or character (the expert, the witness, the attacker).
31    Agent,
32    /// A proposition being argued for or against.
33    Proposition,
34    /// A property or trait being attributed to someone.
35    Property,
36    /// An action being proposed, evaluated, or warned about.
37    Action,
38    /// A domain, field, or context constraining the argument.
39    Domain,
40    /// A consequence or outcome.
41    Consequence,
42}
43
44/// How strong a scheme's inference typically is.
45#[derive(Debug, Clone, Copy, PartialEq, Eq, Hash)]
46pub enum SchemeStrength {
47    /// Strong presumption (e.g., argument from established rule).
48    Strong,
49    /// Moderate presumption (e.g., argument from expert opinion).
50    Moderate,
51    /// Weak presumption (e.g., argument from popularity).
52    Weak,
53}
54
55/// What aspect of a scheme a critical question challenges.
56#[derive(Debug, Clone, PartialEq, Eq, Hash)]
57pub enum Challenge {
58    /// Challenges the truth of a specific premise (by slot name).
59    PremiseTruth(String),
60    /// Challenges the credibility or reliability of the source agent.
61    SourceCredibility,
62    /// Challenges the validity of the inference rule itself.
63    RuleValidity,
64    /// Raises a conflicting authority or counter-expert.
65    ConflictingAuthority,
66    /// Raises an alternative cause or explanation.
67    AlternativeCause,
68    /// Raises unconsidered consequences.
69    UnseenConsequences,
70    /// Challenges the relevance or proportionality of the attack.
71    Proportionality,
72    /// Challenges the analogy's structural similarity.
73    DisanalogyClaim,
74}
75
76#[cfg(test)]
77mod tests {
78    use super::*;
79
80    #[test]
81    fn scheme_id_equality_is_value_based() {
82        assert_eq!(SchemeId(1), SchemeId(1));
83        assert_ne!(SchemeId(1), SchemeId(2));
84    }
85
86    #[test]
87    fn challenge_distinguishes_premise_slots() {
88        let c1 = Challenge::PremiseTruth("expert".into());
89        let c2 = Challenge::PremiseTruth("domain".into());
90        assert_ne!(c1, c2);
91    }
92}
argumentation_schemes/types.rs

argumentation_schemes/
types.rs
