Abstract
Effective deployment and utilisation of limited and constrained intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) resources is seen as a key issue in modern network-centric joint-forces operations. In this chapter, we examine the application of semantic matchmaking and argumentation technologies to the management of ISR resources in the context of coalition operations. We show how ontologies and reasoning can be used to assign sensors and sources to meet the needs of missions, and we show how argumentation can support the process of gathering and reasoning about uncertain evidence obtained from various sources.
This research was sponsored by the US Army Research Laboratory and the UK Ministry of Defence and was accomplished under Agreement Number W911NF-06-3-0001. The views and conclusions contained in this document are those of the author(s) and should not be interpreted as representing the official policies, either expressed or implied, of the US Army Research Laboratory, the US Government, the UK Ministry of Defence or the UK Government. The US and UK Governments are authorised to reproduce and distribute reprints for Government purposes notwithstanding any copyright notation hereon.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
T. J. Norman, A. D. Preece, S. Chalmers, N. R. Jennings, M. M. Luck, V. Dang, T. Nguyen, V. Deora, J. Shao, W. A. Gray, N. J. Fiddian, “CONOISE: Agent-based formation of virtual organisations,” Knowledge-Based Systems 17(2–4), 2004, pp. 103–111.
A. Preece, S. Chalmers, C. McKenzie, “A reusable commitment management service using semantic web technology,” Knowledge-Based Systems 20(2), 2007, pp. 143–151.
J. H. Sheehan, P. H. Deitz, B. E. Bray, B. A. Harris, A. B. H. Wong, “The military missions and means framework,” in Proc. of the Interservice/Industry Training and Simulation and Education Conference, 2003, pp. 655–663.
T. R. Gruber, “Toward principles for the design of ontologies used for knowledge sharing,” Journal of Human Computer Studies 43(5/6), 1994, pp. 907–928.
N. Guarino, “Formal ontologies and information systems,” in Proc. of the 1st International Conference on Formal Ontologies in Information Systems (FOIS-98), IOS Press, 1998, pp. 3–15.
D. McMullen, T. Reichherzer, “The common instrument middleware architecture (CIMA): Instrument ontology & applications,” in Proc. of the 2nd Workshop on Formal Ontologies Meets Industry, Trento, Italy, 2006, pp. 655–663.
D. Russomanno, C. Kothari, O. Thomas, “Building a sensor ontology: A practical approach leveraging ISO and OGC models,” in Proc. of the 2005 International Conference on Artificial Intelligence, CSREA Press, 2005, pp. 637–643.
L. Bermudez, J. Graybeal, R. Arko, “A marine platforms ontology: Experiences and lessons,” in Proc. of the 2006 Workshop on Semantic Sensor Networks, Athens GA, USA, 2006.
C. A. Reed, T. J. Norman, eds., Argumentation Machines: New frontiers in argumentation and computation. Kluwer, 2003.
H. Prakken, G. Sartor, “Computational Logic: Logic Programming and Beyond,” in Essays In Honour of Robert A. Kowalski, Part II. Volume 2048 of LNCS, Springer-Verlag, 2002, pp. 342–380.
A. Jøsang, “A logic for uncertain probabilities,” Int. Journal of Uncertainty, Fuzziness and Knowledge-Based Systems 9, 2001, pp. 279–311.
N. D. Walton, Argumentation Schemes for Presumptive Reasoning. Erlbaum, 1996.
J. L. Pollock, Cognitive Carpentry. Bradford/MIT Press, 1995.
N. Oren, T. J. Norman, A. Preece, “Subjective logic and arguing with evidence,” Artificial Intelligence Journal, 2007, to appear.
H. Prakken, “A study of accrual of arguments, with applications to evidential reasoning,” in Proc. of the 10th Int. Conf. on Artificial Intelligence and Law, 2005, pp. 85–94.
D. N. Walton, “Burden of proof,” Argumentation 2, 1988, pp. 233–254.
F. Bex, H. Prakken, C. Reed, D. Walton, “Towards a formal account of reasoning about evidence: Argumentation schemes and generalisations,” Artificial Intelligence and Law 11(2–3), 2003, pp. 125–165.
B. Verheij, “Dialectical argumentation with argumentation schemes: An approach to legal logic,” Artificial intelligence and Law 11, 2003, pp. 167–195.
N. Oren, T. J. Norman, A. Preece, “Argumentation based contract monitoring in uncertain domains,” in Proc. of the 20th Int. Joint Conf. on Artificial Intelligence, Hyderabad, India, 2007, pp. 1434–1439.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2007 Birkhäuser Verlag Basel/Switzerland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Preece, A., Norman, T.J., Gomez, M., Oren, N. (2007). Managing Intelligence Resources Using Semantic Matchmaking and Argumentation. In: Pěchouček, M., Thompson, S.G., Voos, H. (eds) Defence Industry Applications of Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems. Whitestein Series in Software Agent Technologies and Autonomic Computing. Birkhäuser Basel. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-7643-8571-2_3
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-7643-8571-2_3
Publisher Name: Birkhäuser Basel
Print ISBN: 978-3-7643-8570-5
Online ISBN: 978-3-7643-8571-2
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)