Managing Intelligence Resources Using Semantic Matchmaking and Argumentation

  • Alun Preece
  • Tomothy J. Norman
  • Mario Gomez
  • Nir Oren
Part of the Whitestein Series in Software Agent Technologies and Autonomic Computing book series (WSSAT)


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.


Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Argument Scheme Argument Framework Matching Relation Subjective Logic 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. [1]
    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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. [2]
    A. Preece, S. Chalmers, C. McKenzie, “A reusable commitment management service using semantic web technology,” Knowledge-Based Systems 20(2), 2007, pp. 143–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. [3]
    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.Google Scholar
  4. [4]
    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.Google Scholar
  5. [5]
    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.Google Scholar
  6. [6]
    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.Google Scholar
  7. [7]
    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.Google Scholar
  8. [8]
    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.Google Scholar
  9. [9]
    C. A. Reed, T. J. Norman, eds., Argumentation Machines: New frontiers in argumentation and computation. Kluwer, 2003.Google Scholar
  10. [10]
    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.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  11. [11]
    A. Jøsang, “A logic for uncertain probabilities,” Int. Journal of Uncertainty, Fuzziness and Knowledge-Based Systems 9, 2001, pp. 279–311.MATHGoogle Scholar
  12. [12]
    N. D. Walton, Argumentation Schemes for Presumptive Reasoning. Erlbaum, 1996.Google Scholar
  13. [13]
    J. L. Pollock, Cognitive Carpentry. Bradford/MIT Press, 1995.Google Scholar
  14. [14]
    N. Oren, T. J. Norman, A. Preece, “Subjective logic and arguing with evidence,” Artificial Intelligence Journal, 2007, to appear.Google Scholar
  15. [15]
    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.Google Scholar
  16. [16]
    D. N. Walton, “Burden of proof,” Argumentation 2, 1988, pp. 233–254.Google Scholar
  17. [17]
    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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. [18]
    B. Verheij, “Dialectical argumentation with argumentation schemes: An approach to legal logic,” Artificial intelligence and Law 11, 2003, pp. 167–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. [19]
    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.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Birkhäuser Verlag Basel/Switzerland 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Alun Preece
    • 1
  • Tomothy J. Norman
    • 1
  • Mario Gomez
    • 1
  • Nir Oren
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computing ScienceUniversity of AberdeenAberdeenUK

Personalised recommendations