Advertisement

Eco-Efficient Packaging Material Selection for Fresh Produce: Industrial Session

  • Nouredine Tamani
  • Patricio Mosse
  • Madalina Croitoru
  • Patrice Buche
  • Valérie Guillard
  • Carole Guillaume
  • Nathalie Gontard
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 8577)

Abstract

Within the framework of the European project EcoBioCap (ECOefficient BIOdegradable Composite Advanced Packaging), we model a real world use case aiming at conceiving the next generation of food packagings. The objective is to select packaging materials according to possibly conflicting requirements expressed by the involved parties (food and packaging industries, health authorities, consumers, waste management authority, etc.). The requirements and user preferences are modeled by several ontological rules provided by the stakeholders expressing their viewpoints and expertise. To deal with these several aspects (CO 2 and O 2 permeance, interaction with the product, sanitary, cost, end of life, etc.) for packaging selection, an argumentation process has been introduced.

Keywords

Decision Support System Multiagent System Argumentation Framework Packaging Industry Argumentation System 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Amgoud, L., Bodenstaff, L., Caminada, M., McBurney, P., Parsons, S., Prakken, H., Veenen, J., Vreeswijk, G.: Final review and report on formal argumentation system. Deliverable d2.6 aspic. Technical report (2006)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Amgoud, L., Prade, H.: Using arguments for making and explaining decisions. Artificial Intelligence 173(3-4), 413–436 (2009)CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Besnard, P., Hunter, A.: Elements of Argumentation. The MIT Press (2008)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bouyssou, D., Dubois, D., Pirlot, M., Prade, H.: Decision-making process – Concepts and Methods. Wiley (2009)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Calvanese, D., Giacomo, G.D., Lembo, D., Lenzerini, M., Rosati, R.: Data complexity of query answering in description logics. In: KR, pp. 260–270 (2006)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Caminada, M., Amgoud, L.: On the evaluation of argumentation formalisms. Artificial Intelligence 171, 286–310 (2007)CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Colucci, S., Noia, T.D., Ragone, A., Ruta, M., Straccia, U., Tinelli, E.: Informative Top-k retrieval for advanced skill management. In: De Virgilio, R., et al. (eds.) Semantic Web Information Management, ch. 19, pp. 449–476. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Destercke, S., Buche, P., Guillard, V.: A flexible bipolar querying approach with imprecise data and guaranteed results. Fuzzy Sets and Systems 169, 51–64 (2011)CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Dung, P.M.: On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-persons games. Artificial Intelligence 77(2), 321–357 (1995)CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Prakken, H.: An abstract framework for argumentation with structured arguments. Technical report, Department of Information and Computing Sciences. Utrecht University (2009)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Rahwan, I., Simari, G.: Argumentation in Artificial Intelligence. Springer (2009)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Tamani, N., Croitoru, M.: Fuzzy argumentation system for decision making. Technical report, INRIA LIRMM (2013), https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B0DPgJDRNwbLdE5wdzFQekJocXM/edit?usp=sharing
  13. 13.
    Tamani, N., Croitoru, M., Buche, P.: A viewpoint approach to structured argumentation. In: Bramer, M., Petridis, M. (eds.) The Thirty-third SGAI International Conference on Innovative Techniques and Applications of Artificial Intelligence, pp. 265–271 (2013)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Tamani, N., Croitoru, M., Buche, P.: Conflicting Viewpoint Relational Database Querying: An Argumentation Approach. In: Scerri, L., Huhns, B. (eds.) Proceedings of the 2014 International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, AAMAS 2014, pp. 1553–1554. International Foundation for Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, Richland (2014)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Wu, Y.: Between argument and conclusion. Argument-based approaches to discussion. Inference and Uncertainty. PhD thesis, Université du Luxembourg (2012)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nouredine Tamani
    • 1
  • Patricio Mosse
    • 2
  • Madalina Croitoru
    • 1
  • Patrice Buche
    • 2
  • Valérie Guillard
    • 2
  • Carole Guillaume
    • 2
  • Nathalie Gontard
    • 2
  1. 1.LIRMMUniversity Montpellier 2Montpellier Cedex 5France
  2. 2.UMR IATE INRAMontpellierFrance

Personalised recommendations