Automated Workflows using Dialectical Argumentation
نویسندگان
چکیده
This paper presents a framework for dynamic workflow creation and execution developed as part of ARGUGRID, a collaborative project that seeks to provide a new model for programming the Grid at a semantic, knowledge-based level of abstraction through the use of argumentative agent technology. In this framework, workflow selection is coordinated by agent interactions based upon a dialogue game that allows agents to argue about workflows and their properties.
منابع مشابه
Argumentation structures that integrate dialectical and non-dialectical reasoning
Argumentation concepts have been applied to numerous knowledge engineering endeavours in recent years. For example, a variety of logics have been developed to represent argumentation in the context of a dialectical situation such as a dialogue. In contrast to the dialectical approach, argumentation has also been used to structure knowledge. This can be seen as a non-dialectical approach. The To...
متن کاملArguing Antibiotics: A Pragma-Dialectical Approach to Medical Decision-Making
Over the past decade, the ideal model of shared decisionmaking has been increasingly promoted as the preferred standard of doctor-patient communication. The model stipulates that doctor and patient should be considered coequal discussion partners that negotiate their preferences to arrive at a shared treatment decision (Edwards and Elwyn 2009). Thereby, the model notably gives rise to the usage...
متن کاملDialectical Abstract Argumentation: A Characterization of the Marking Criterion
This article falls within the field of abstract argumentation frameworks. In particular, we focus on the study of frameworks using a proof procedure based on dialectical trees. These trees rely on a marking procedure to determine the warrant status of their root argument. Thus, our objective is to formulate rationality postulates to characterize the marking criterion over dialectical trees. The...
متن کاملStrawmen and eidolons: using argumentation to reason across scenarios
We propose a dialectical argumentation formalism for qualitative reasoning under uncertainty in a context of alternative scenarios. Our formalism extends prior work representing knowledge uncertainty using dialectical argumentation in participant interaction spaces called Agoras. We define the notion of a scenario in this framework and consider its formal properties. In particular, we ask when ...
متن کاملOn the existence and multiplicity of extensions in dialectical argumentation
In the present paper, the existence and multiplicity problems of extensions are addressed. The focus is on extension of the stable type. The main result of the paper is an elegant characterization of the existence and multiplicity of extensions in terms of the notion of dialectical justification, a close cousin of the notion of admissibility. The characterization is given in the context of the ...
متن کامل