A Three-Layer Argumentation Framework
نویسندگان
چکیده
Argumentation frameworks which are abstract are suitable for the study of independent properties of any specific aspect (e.g. arguments sceptical and credulous admissible) that are relevant for any argumentation context. However, its direct adoption on specific application contexts requires dealing with questions such as the argument structure, the argument categories, the conditions under which an attack/support is established between arguments, etc. This paper presents a generic argumentation framework which comprehends a conceptualization layer to capture the expressivity and semantics of the argumentation data employed in a specific context and simplifies its adoption by applications. The conceptualization layer together with the defined argument structure is exploited to automatically derive the attack and support relationships between arguments.
منابع مشابه
Combining Norms, Roles, Dependence and Argumentation in Agreement Technologies
A major challenge for Agreement Technologies is the combination of existing technologies and reasoning methods. In this paper we focus on the three core layers of the Agreement Technologies tower, called Norms, Organization and Argumentation. We present a framework for arguing about agreements based on norms, roles and dependence, together with a case study from the sharing economy.
متن کاملUpdates of argumentation frameworks
Two main topics are studied in this work. First, updates of assumption-based frameworks over deductive systems. Second, a problem of an inertia of an admissible set after an update of an abstract argumentation framework. We consider an assumption-based framework over a logic program as composed of three parts – an argumentation framework, a deduction machinery and a knowledge base (a logic prog...
متن کاملOn Enforcing a Constraint in Argumentation
This paper addresses the issue of enforcing a constraint in an argumentation system. The system consists in (1) an argumentation framework, the structure of which is made up of a set of arguments and of an attack relationship, (2) an acceptability semantics, and (3) acceptable sets of arguments, computed from (1) and (2). An agent may want another agent to consider a new attack, or to have a gi...
متن کاملFormalizing and Studying Dialectical Explanations in Inconsistent Knowledge Bases. (Formalisation et Etude des Explications Dialectiques dans les Bases de Connaissances Incohérentes)
Knowledge bases are deductive databases where the machinery of logic is used to represent domain-specific and general-purpose knowledge over existing data. In the existential rules framework, a knowledge base is composed of two layers: the data layer which represents the factual knowledge, and the ontological layer that incorporates rules of deduction and negative constraints. The main reasonin...
متن کاملArgumentation-based abduction in disjunctive logic programming
In this paper we propose an argumentation-based semantic framework , called DAS, for disjunctive logic programming. The basic idea is to translate a disjunctive logic program into an argumentation-theoretic framework. One unique feature of our proposed framework is to consider the disjunctions of negative literals as possible assumptions so as to represent incomplete information. In our framewo...
متن کاملذخیره در منابع من
با ذخیره ی این منبع در منابع من، دسترسی به آن را برای استفاده های بعدی آسان تر کنید
عنوان ژورنال:
دوره شماره
صفحات -
تاریخ انتشار 2011