Inconsistent-tolerant base revision through argument theory change
- Autores
- Moguillansky, Martin Oscar; Wassermann, Renata; Falappa, Marcelo Alejandro
- Año de publicación
- 2012
- Idioma
- inglés
- Tipo de recurso
- artículo
- Estado
- versión publicada
- Descripción
- Reasoning and change over inconsistent knowledge bases (KBs) is of utmost relevance in areas like medicine and law. Argumentation may bring the possibility to cope with both problems. Firstly, by constructing an argumentation framework (AF) from the inconsistent KB, we can decide whether to accept or reject a certain claim through the interplay among arguments and counterarguments. Secondly, by handling dynamics of arguments of the AF, we might deal with the dynamics of knowledge of the underlying inconsistent KB. Dynamics of arguments has recently attracted attention and although some approaches have been proposed, a full axiomatization within the theory of belief revision was still missing. A revision arises when we want the argumentation semantics to accept an argument. Argument Theory Change (ATC) encloses the revision operators that modify the AF by analyzing dialectical trees-arguments as nodes and attacks as edges-as the adopted argumentation semantics. In this article, we present a simple approach to ATC based on propositional KBs. This allows to manage change of inconsistent KBs by relying upon classical belief revision, although contrary to it, consistency restoration of the KB is avoided. Subsequently, a set of rationality postulates adapted to argumentation is given, and finally, the proposed model of change is related to the postulates through the corresponding representation theorem. Though we focus on propositional logic, the results can be easily extended to more expressive formalisms such as first-order logic and description logics, to handle evolution of ontologies. © The Author 2011. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved.
Fil: Moguillansky, Martin Oscar. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Bahía Blanca. Instituto de Ciencias e Ingeniería de la Computación. Universidad Nacional del Sur. Departamento de Ciencias e Ingeniería de la Computación. Instituto de Ciencias e Ingeniería de la Computación; Argentina
Fil: Wassermann, Renata. Universidade de Sao Paulo; Brasil
Fil: Falappa, Marcelo Alejandro. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Bahía Blanca. Instituto de Ciencias e Ingeniería de la Computación. Universidad Nacional del Sur. Departamento de Ciencias e Ingeniería de la Computación. Instituto de Ciencias e Ingeniería de la Computación; Argentina - Materia
-
Argumentation
Argumentation Dynamics
Belief Base Revision
Knowledge Representation And Reasoning
Reasoning Over Inconsistency - Nivel de accesibilidad
- acceso abierto
- Condiciones de uso
- https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/ar/
- Repositorio
- Institución
- Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas
- OAI Identificador
- oai:ri.conicet.gov.ar:11336/66309
Ver los metadatos del registro completo
id |
CONICETDig_6253399f4d1bb8d04885d2a122390469 |
---|---|
oai_identifier_str |
oai:ri.conicet.gov.ar:11336/66309 |
network_acronym_str |
CONICETDig |
repository_id_str |
3498 |
network_name_str |
CONICET Digital (CONICET) |
spelling |
Inconsistent-tolerant base revision through argument theory changeMoguillansky, Martin OscarWassermann, RenataFalappa, Marcelo AlejandroArgumentationArgumentation DynamicsBelief Base RevisionKnowledge Representation And ReasoningReasoning Over Inconsistencyhttps://purl.org/becyt/ford/1.2https://purl.org/becyt/ford/1Reasoning and change over inconsistent knowledge bases (KBs) is of utmost relevance in areas like medicine and law. Argumentation may bring the possibility to cope with both problems. Firstly, by constructing an argumentation framework (AF) from the inconsistent KB, we can decide whether to accept or reject a certain claim through the interplay among arguments and counterarguments. Secondly, by handling dynamics of arguments of the AF, we might deal with the dynamics of knowledge of the underlying inconsistent KB. Dynamics of arguments has recently attracted attention and although some approaches have been proposed, a full axiomatization within the theory of belief revision was still missing. A revision arises when we want the argumentation semantics to accept an argument. Argument Theory Change (ATC) encloses the revision operators that modify the AF by analyzing dialectical trees-arguments as nodes and attacks as edges-as the adopted argumentation semantics. In this article, we present a simple approach to ATC based on propositional KBs. This allows to manage change of inconsistent KBs by relying upon classical belief revision, although contrary to it, consistency restoration of the KB is avoided. Subsequently, a set of rationality postulates adapted to argumentation is given, and finally, the proposed model of change is related to the postulates through the corresponding representation theorem. Though we focus on propositional logic, the results can be easily extended to more expressive formalisms such as first-order logic and description logics, to handle evolution of ontologies. © The Author 2011. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved.Fil: Moguillansky, Martin Oscar. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Bahía Blanca. Instituto de Ciencias e Ingeniería de la Computación. Universidad Nacional del Sur. Departamento de Ciencias e Ingeniería de la Computación. Instituto de Ciencias e Ingeniería de la Computación; ArgentinaFil: Wassermann, Renata. Universidade de Sao Paulo; BrasilFil: Falappa, Marcelo Alejandro. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Bahía Blanca. Instituto de Ciencias e Ingeniería de la Computación. Universidad Nacional del Sur. Departamento de Ciencias e Ingeniería de la Computación. Instituto de Ciencias e Ingeniería de la Computación; ArgentinaOxford University Press2012-02info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersionhttp://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_6501info:ar-repo/semantics/articuloapplication/pdfapplication/pdfhttp://hdl.handle.net/11336/66309Moguillansky, Martin Oscar; Wassermann, Renata; Falappa, Marcelo Alejandro; Inconsistent-tolerant base revision through argument theory change; Oxford University Press; Logic Journal of the IGPL (print); 20; 1; 2-2012; 154-1861367-0751CONICET DigitalCONICETenginfo:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/url/https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/8172067/info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/doi/10.1093/jigpal/jzr029info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccesshttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/ar/reponame:CONICET Digital (CONICET)instname:Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas2025-09-03T10:04:03Zoai:ri.conicet.gov.ar:11336/66309instacron:CONICETInstitucionalhttp://ri.conicet.gov.ar/Organismo científico-tecnológicoNo correspondehttp://ri.conicet.gov.ar/oai/requestdasensio@conicet.gov.ar; lcarlino@conicet.gov.arArgentinaNo correspondeNo correspondeNo correspondeopendoar:34982025-09-03 10:04:03.869CONICET Digital (CONICET) - Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicasfalse |
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv |
Inconsistent-tolerant base revision through argument theory change |
title |
Inconsistent-tolerant base revision through argument theory change |
spellingShingle |
Inconsistent-tolerant base revision through argument theory change Moguillansky, Martin Oscar Argumentation Argumentation Dynamics Belief Base Revision Knowledge Representation And Reasoning Reasoning Over Inconsistency |
title_short |
Inconsistent-tolerant base revision through argument theory change |
title_full |
Inconsistent-tolerant base revision through argument theory change |
title_fullStr |
Inconsistent-tolerant base revision through argument theory change |
title_full_unstemmed |
Inconsistent-tolerant base revision through argument theory change |
title_sort |
Inconsistent-tolerant base revision through argument theory change |
dc.creator.none.fl_str_mv |
Moguillansky, Martin Oscar Wassermann, Renata Falappa, Marcelo Alejandro |
author |
Moguillansky, Martin Oscar |
author_facet |
Moguillansky, Martin Oscar Wassermann, Renata Falappa, Marcelo Alejandro |
author_role |
author |
author2 |
Wassermann, Renata Falappa, Marcelo Alejandro |
author2_role |
author author |
dc.subject.none.fl_str_mv |
Argumentation Argumentation Dynamics Belief Base Revision Knowledge Representation And Reasoning Reasoning Over Inconsistency |
topic |
Argumentation Argumentation Dynamics Belief Base Revision Knowledge Representation And Reasoning Reasoning Over Inconsistency |
purl_subject.fl_str_mv |
https://purl.org/becyt/ford/1.2 https://purl.org/becyt/ford/1 |
dc.description.none.fl_txt_mv |
Reasoning and change over inconsistent knowledge bases (KBs) is of utmost relevance in areas like medicine and law. Argumentation may bring the possibility to cope with both problems. Firstly, by constructing an argumentation framework (AF) from the inconsistent KB, we can decide whether to accept or reject a certain claim through the interplay among arguments and counterarguments. Secondly, by handling dynamics of arguments of the AF, we might deal with the dynamics of knowledge of the underlying inconsistent KB. Dynamics of arguments has recently attracted attention and although some approaches have been proposed, a full axiomatization within the theory of belief revision was still missing. A revision arises when we want the argumentation semantics to accept an argument. Argument Theory Change (ATC) encloses the revision operators that modify the AF by analyzing dialectical trees-arguments as nodes and attacks as edges-as the adopted argumentation semantics. In this article, we present a simple approach to ATC based on propositional KBs. This allows to manage change of inconsistent KBs by relying upon classical belief revision, although contrary to it, consistency restoration of the KB is avoided. Subsequently, a set of rationality postulates adapted to argumentation is given, and finally, the proposed model of change is related to the postulates through the corresponding representation theorem. Though we focus on propositional logic, the results can be easily extended to more expressive formalisms such as first-order logic and description logics, to handle evolution of ontologies. © The Author 2011. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. Fil: Moguillansky, Martin Oscar. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Bahía Blanca. Instituto de Ciencias e Ingeniería de la Computación. Universidad Nacional del Sur. Departamento de Ciencias e Ingeniería de la Computación. Instituto de Ciencias e Ingeniería de la Computación; Argentina Fil: Wassermann, Renata. Universidade de Sao Paulo; Brasil Fil: Falappa, Marcelo Alejandro. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Bahía Blanca. Instituto de Ciencias e Ingeniería de la Computación. Universidad Nacional del Sur. Departamento de Ciencias e Ingeniería de la Computación. Instituto de Ciencias e Ingeniería de la Computación; Argentina |
description |
Reasoning and change over inconsistent knowledge bases (KBs) is of utmost relevance in areas like medicine and law. Argumentation may bring the possibility to cope with both problems. Firstly, by constructing an argumentation framework (AF) from the inconsistent KB, we can decide whether to accept or reject a certain claim through the interplay among arguments and counterarguments. Secondly, by handling dynamics of arguments of the AF, we might deal with the dynamics of knowledge of the underlying inconsistent KB. Dynamics of arguments has recently attracted attention and although some approaches have been proposed, a full axiomatization within the theory of belief revision was still missing. A revision arises when we want the argumentation semantics to accept an argument. Argument Theory Change (ATC) encloses the revision operators that modify the AF by analyzing dialectical trees-arguments as nodes and attacks as edges-as the adopted argumentation semantics. In this article, we present a simple approach to ATC based on propositional KBs. This allows to manage change of inconsistent KBs by relying upon classical belief revision, although contrary to it, consistency restoration of the KB is avoided. Subsequently, a set of rationality postulates adapted to argumentation is given, and finally, the proposed model of change is related to the postulates through the corresponding representation theorem. Though we focus on propositional logic, the results can be easily extended to more expressive formalisms such as first-order logic and description logics, to handle evolution of ontologies. © The Author 2011. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. |
publishDate |
2012 |
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv |
2012-02 |
dc.type.none.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/article info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion http://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_6501 info:ar-repo/semantics/articulo |
format |
article |
status_str |
publishedVersion |
dc.identifier.none.fl_str_mv |
http://hdl.handle.net/11336/66309 Moguillansky, Martin Oscar; Wassermann, Renata; Falappa, Marcelo Alejandro; Inconsistent-tolerant base revision through argument theory change; Oxford University Press; Logic Journal of the IGPL (print); 20; 1; 2-2012; 154-186 1367-0751 CONICET Digital CONICET |
url |
http://hdl.handle.net/11336/66309 |
identifier_str_mv |
Moguillansky, Martin Oscar; Wassermann, Renata; Falappa, Marcelo Alejandro; Inconsistent-tolerant base revision through argument theory change; Oxford University Press; Logic Journal of the IGPL (print); 20; 1; 2-2012; 154-186 1367-0751 CONICET Digital CONICET |
dc.language.none.fl_str_mv |
eng |
language |
eng |
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/url/https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/8172067/ info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/doi/10.1093/jigpal/jzr029 |
dc.rights.none.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/ar/ |
eu_rights_str_mv |
openAccess |
rights_invalid_str_mv |
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/ar/ |
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv |
application/pdf application/pdf |
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv |
Oxford University Press |
publisher.none.fl_str_mv |
Oxford University Press |
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv |
reponame:CONICET Digital (CONICET) instname:Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas |
reponame_str |
CONICET Digital (CONICET) |
collection |
CONICET Digital (CONICET) |
instname_str |
Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas |
repository.name.fl_str_mv |
CONICET Digital (CONICET) - Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas |
repository.mail.fl_str_mv |
dasensio@conicet.gov.ar; lcarlino@conicet.gov.ar |
_version_ |
1842269834602086400 |
score |
13.13397 |