Abstract
We introduce in this paper a viewpoint-based argumentation approach in the context of the EcoBioCap project, which requirements are different actor arguments expressed over several criteria, describing the objects of a domain, to support/oppose contradictory goals. A viewpoint is an ASPIC+ argumentation system defined over a subset of rules corresponding to a single criterion. Concepts of conflict between viewpoints, independent viewpoints, and collection of independent viewpoints are the basis of our argumentation approach.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsNotes
- 1.
This follows the line of work of [11], because credulous attitude can lead to inconsistencies.
References
S. Destercke, P. Buche, and V. Guillard. A flexible bipolar querying approach with imprecise data and guaranteed results. Fuzzy sets and Systems, 169:51–64, 2011.
S. Colucci, T. D. Noia, A. Ragone, M. Ruta, U. Straccia, and E. Tinelli. Semantic Web Information Management, chapter 19 : Informative Top-k retrieval for advanced skill management, pages 449–476. Springer-Verlag Belin Heidelberg, 2010.
H. Prakken. An abstract framework for argumentation with structured arguments. Technical report, Department of Information and Computing Sciences. Utrecht University., 2009.
S. Modgil and H. Prakken. A general account of argumentation with preferences. Artificial Intelligence, 195:361–397, 2013.
P. Besnard and A. Hunter. Elements of Argumentation. The MIT Press, 2008.
P. M. Dung. On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and \(n\)-person games. Artificial Intelligence Journal, 77:321–357, 1995.
I. Rahwan and G. Simari. Argumentation in Artificial Intelligence. Springer, 2009.
L. Amgoud and H. Prade. Using arguments for making and explaining decisions. Artificial Intelligence, 173(3–4):413–436, 2009.
D. Bouyssou, D. Dubois, M. Pirlot, and H. Prade. Decision-making process — Concepts and Methods. Wiley, 2009.
A. J. García and G. R. Simari. Defeasible logic programming: An argumentative approach. Theory and practice of logic programming, 4:95–138, 2004.
M. Caminada and L. Amgoud. On the evaluation of argumentation formalisms. Artificial Intelligence, 171:286–310, 2007.
T. J. Bench-Capon. Persuasion in practical argument using value-based argumentation frameworks. Journal of Logic and Computation, 13(3):429–448, 2003.
Z. Assaghir, A. Napoli, M. Kaytoue, D. Dubois, and H. Prade. Numerical information fusion: Lattice of answers with supporting arguments. In ICTAI, pages 621–628, 2011.
N. Tamani, M. Croitoru, P. Buche. A viewpoint approach to structured argumentation. https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B0DPgJDRNwbLRmlqUVh4cGFrSVk/edit?usp=sharing. Technical report, INRA-SupAgro, 2013
M. W. A. Caminada, W. A. Carnielli, and P. E. Dunne. Semi-stable semantics. Journal of Logic and Computation, pages 1–45, 2011.
Y. Wu. Between argument and conclusion. Argument-based approaches to discussion. Inference and Uncertainty. PhD thesis, UniversitT du Luxembourg, 2012.
L. Amgoud. An argumentation-based model for reasoning about coalition structures. In ArgMas, pages 217–228, 2005.
L. Amgoud. Towards a formal model for task allocation via coalition formation. In AAMAS, pages 1185–1186, 2005.
G. Boella, L. van der Torre, and S. Villata. Social viewpoints for arguing about coalitions. In PRIMA, pages 66–77, 2008.
V. D. Dang and N. R. Jennings. Generating coalition structures with finite bound from the optimal guarantees. In AAMAS, pages 564–571, 2004.
S. Heras, J. Jordan, V. Botti, and V. Julian. Argue to agree: a case-based argumentation approach. International Journal of Approximate reasoning, 54:82–108, 2013.
T. L. van der Weide, F. Dignum, J.-J. C. Meyer, H. Prakken, and G. Vreeswijk. Arguing about preferences and decisions. In ArgMAS, pages 68–85, 2010.
S. Coste-Marquis, C. Devred, S. Konieczny, M.-C. Lagasquie-Schiex, and P. Marquis. On the merging of dung’s argumentation systems. Artificial Intelligence, pages 730–753, 2007.
L. Amgoud, J.-F. Bonnefon, and H. Prade. An argumentation-based approach to multiple criteria decision. In ECSQARU, pages 269–280, 2005.
C. Cayrol and M.-C. Lagasquie-Schiex. Coalition of arguments in bipolar argumentation frameworks. In 7th CMNA, pages 14–20, 2007.
Acknowledgments
The research leading to these results has received funding from the European Community’s Seventh Framework Programme (FP7/ 2007-2013) under the grant agreement nºFP7-265669-EcoBioCAP project.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2013 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this paper
Cite this paper
Tamani, N., Croitoru, M., Buche, P. (2013). A Viewpoint Approach to Structured Argumentation. In: Bramer, M., Petridis, M. (eds) Research and Development in Intelligent Systems XXX. SGAI 2013. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-02621-3_19
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-02621-3_19
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-02620-6
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-02621-3
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)