Abstract
The purpose of this paper is to develop a theory for argumentation. Its central notion is the determination whether an argument is justified, overruled or defensible in an argumentation framework on the basis of priority. Most approaches are based on a dialectical style, which is also discussed for this approach. I establish a priority hierarchy of rules to solve the problem of con icts between arguments, and I present a mechanism to reason about nonmonotonicity of rules over the priority hierarchy. The theory presented here is based on default logic, and is a modification and extension of Prakken's argumentation framework, and a eshing out of the abstract argumentation framework of Dung.
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
Bochman, A., On the relation between default and modal nonmonotonic reasoning, Artificial Intelligence 101, pp. 1–34, 1998.
Brewka, G., Preferred Subtheories: An Extended Logical Framework for Default Reasoning, in: Proceedings IJCAI-1991, pp. 1043–1048, 1991.
Delgrande, J., An Approach to Default Reasoning based on a First-Order Conditional Logic, Artificial Intelligence 36, pp. 63–90, 1988.
Dung, P., On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games, Artificial Intelligence 77, 1995.
Freund, M., Preferential reasoning in the perspective of Poole default logic, Artificial Intelligence 98, pp. 209–235, 1998.
McDermott, D.V. and J. Doyle, Non-monotonic logic I, Artificial Intelligence 13, pp. 41–72, 1980.
Pollock, J.L., Defeasible reasoning, Cognitive Science 11(4), pp. 481–518, 1987.
Poole, D., A Logical Framework for Default Reasoning, Artificial Intelligence 36, pp. 27–47, 1988.
Prakken, H., Logical Tools for Modelling Legal Argument, A study of Defeasible reasoning in law, Kluwer Academic publishers, Dordrecht, 1997.
Prakken, H. and G. Sartor, Argument-based extended logic programming with defeasible priorities, Journal of Applied Non-classical Logics 7, pp. 25–75, 1997.
Reiter, R., A Logic for Default Reasoning, Artificial Intelligence 13, pp. 81–132, 1980.
Reiter, R., Nonmonotonic Reasoning, Annual Review of Computer Science 2, pp. 147–186, 1987.
Rescher, N., Hypothetical Reasoning, North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1964.
Royakkers, L.M.M., Extending Deontic Logic for the Formalisation of Legal Rules, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, 1998.
Royakkers, L.M.M. and F. Dignum, Defeasible reasoning with legal rules, in: D. Nute (editor), Defeasible Deontic Reasoning, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, pp. 263–286, 1997.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 1999 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this paper
Cite this paper
Royakkers, L. (1999). Is this Argument Justified, Overruled or Defensible?. In: Bench-Capon, T.J., Soda, G., Tjoa, A.M. (eds) Database and Expert Systems Applications. DEXA 1999. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 1677. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-48309-8_24
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-48309-8_24
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-540-66448-2
Online ISBN: 978-3-540-48309-0
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive