DALEK: A Tool for Dialectical Explanations in Inconsistent Knowledge Bases
نویسندگان
چکیده
In this paper we present a prototype of a framework called dalek (DiALectical Explanation in Knowledge-bases). This framework implements dialectical approaches to explain query answers in inconsistent knowledge bases. The motivation behind the prototype is as follows: given an inconsistent knowledge base represented within Datalog±, a semantics for handling inconsistency and a query Q, the goal is to explain why Q is accepted or not accepted under such semantics. The explanation takes a dialogical form (cf. [1,3]).
منابع مشابه
Explanatory dialogues with argumentative faculties over inconsistent knowledge bases
We introduce a formal model of explanatory dialogue called EDS. We extend this model by including argumentation capacities to facilitate knowledge acquisition in inconsistent knowledge bases. To prove the relevance of such model we provide the dalek (DiALectical Explanation in Knowledge-bases) framework that implements this model. We show the usefulness of the framework on a real-world applicat...
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 کاملQuery Failure Explanation in Inconsistent Knowledge Bases: An Argumentation Approach
We propose an argumentation based explanation for query failure explanation under ICR-semantics in an Ontology-Based Data Access (OBDA) setting. We use a rule-based language and we base our work on the equivalence between ICRbased query answering in inconsistent knowledge bases and sceptical acceptance of arguments. We propose a multilevel explanation that exploits both the inference power of t...
متن کاملAn Empirical Evaluation of Argumentation in Explaining Inconsistency-Tolerant Query Answering
In this paper we answer empirically the following research question: “Are dialectical explanation methods more effective than one-shot explanation methods for Intersection of Closed Repairs inconsistency tolerant semantics in existential rules knowledge bases?” We ran two experiments with 84 and respectively 38 participants and showed that under certain conditions dialectical approaches are sig...
متن کاملGenerating Defeasible Knowledge Bases from Real-World Argumentations using D-BAS
d-bas is an open-source web tool for dialog-based online argumentation among non-expert human users [7]. In this work, we present dabasco, a d-bas module that allows to automatically export d-bas discussions, interpreted as defeasible knowledge bases, into formats of three well-established argumentation models: abstract Argumentation Frameworks, the ASPIC Framework, and Abstract Dialectical Fra...
متن کامل