Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]

skip to main content
10.5555/2615731.2616058acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesaamasConference Proceedingsconference-collections
poster

Conflicting viewpoint relational database querying: an argumentation approach

Published: 05 May 2014 Publication History

Abstract

Within the framework of the European project EcoBioCap, 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. Since several aspects need to be considered (CO2 and O2 permeance, interaction with the product, sanitary, cost, end of life, etc.) in order to select objects, an argumentation process can be used to express/reason about different aspects or criteria describing the packagings. We define then in this paper an argumentation approach which combines a description logic (DLR-Lite) within ASPIC framework for relational database querying. The argumentation step is finally used to express and/or enrich a bipolar query employed for packaging selection.

References

[1]
L. Amgoud, L. Bodenstaff, M. Caminada, P. McBurney, S. Parsons, H. Prakken, J. Veenen, and G. Vreeswijk. Final review and report on formal argumentation system.deliverable d2.6 aspic. Technical report, 2006.
[2]
L. Amgoud and H. Prade. Using arguments for making and explaining decisions. Artificial Intelligence, 173(3--4):413--436, 2009.
[3]
P. Besnard and A. Hunter. Elements of Argumentation. The MIT Press, 2008.
[4]
D. Bouyssou, D. Dubois, M. Pirlot, and H. Prade. Decision-making process -- Concepts and Methods. Wiley, 2009.
[5]
D. Calvanese, G. D. Giacomo, D. Lembo, M. Lenzerini, and R. Rosati. Data complexity of query answering in description logics. In KR, pages 260--270, 2006.
[6]
M. Caminada and L. Amgoud. On the evaluation of argumentation formalisms. Artificial Intelligence, 171:286--310, 2007.
[7]
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.
[8]
P. M. Dung. 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.
[9]
S. Modgil and H. Prakken. A general account of argumentation with preferences. Artificial Intelligence, 195:361--397, 2013.
[10]
H. Prakken. An abstract framework for argumentation with structured arguments. Argument and Computation, 1(2):93--124, 2011.
[11]
I. Rahwan and G. Simari. Argumentation in Artificial Intelligence. Springer, 2009.
[12]
N. Tamani, M. Croitoru, and P. Buche. A viewpoint approach to structured argumentation. https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B0DPgJDRNwbLRmlqUVh4cGFrSVk/edit?usp=sharing. Technical report, INRA-SupAgro, 2013.

Index Terms

  1. Conflicting viewpoint relational database querying: an argumentation approach

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Please enable JavaScript to view thecomments powered by Disqus.

    Information & Contributors

    Information

    Published In

    cover image ACM Other conferences
    AAMAS '14: Proceedings of the 2014 international conference on Autonomous agents and multi-agent systems
    May 2014
    1774 pages
    ISBN:9781450327381

    Sponsors

    • IFAAMAS

    In-Cooperation

    Publisher

    International Foundation for Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems

    Richland, SC

    Publication History

    Published: 05 May 2014

    Check for updates

    Author Tags

    1. application within the ecobiocap project
    2. argumentation
    3. decision support system
    4. description logics and DLR-lite

    Qualifiers

    • Poster

    Conference

    AAMAS '14
    Sponsor:

    Acceptance Rates

    AAMAS '14 Paper Acceptance Rate 169 of 709 submissions, 24%;
    Overall Acceptance Rate 1,155 of 5,036 submissions, 23%

    Contributors

    Other Metrics

    Bibliometrics & Citations

    Bibliometrics

    Article Metrics

    • 0
      Total Citations
    • 48
      Total Downloads
    • Downloads (Last 12 months)0
    • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)0
    Reflects downloads up to 19 Sep 2024

    Other Metrics

    Citations

    View Options

    Get Access

    Login options

    View options

    PDF

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader

    Media

    Figures

    Other

    Tables

    Share

    Share

    Share this Publication link

    Share on social media