A taxonomy for argumentative frameworks based on labelled deduction

Autores
Chesñevar, Carlos Iván
Año de publicación
2001
Idioma
inglés
Tipo de recurso
documento de conferencia
Estado
versión publicada
Descripción
Artificial Intelligence has long dealt with the issue of finding a suitable formalization for reasoning with incomplete and potentially inconsistent information. Defeasible argumentation [SL92,CML00,PraVre99] has proven to be a successful approach in many respects, since it naturally resembles many aspects of commonsense reasoning (see [CML00,PraVre99] for details). Besides, recent work [PraVre99,BDKT97] has shown that defeasible argumentation constitutes a confluence point for characterizing many different approaches to non-monotonic reasoning. Nevertheless, the evolution of different, alternative formalisms for modeling argumentation has resulted in a number of models that share some common features (the notion of argument, attack between arguments, defeat, dialectical analysis, etc.). This constitutes a motivation for the definition of a unified ontology, under which these different features can be analyzed and inter-related. As a byproduct from such an ontology, a classification (or taxonomy) of argumentation frameworks in terms of knowledge encoding capabilities, expressive power, etc. would be possible. In [Che01] a logical framework for defeasible argumentation called SDEAR was developed. The SDEAR framework is based on labelled deductive systems [Gab96]. Labelled Deductive Systems offer an attractive approach to formalizing complex logical systems, since they allow to characterize the different components involved by using different sorts of labels. One of the motivations for developing this framework was namely the definition of a single, unified ontology to capture the main issues involved in defeasible argumentation by specifying a suitable underlying logical language and its associated inference rules. In this presentation we focus on a particular research line which emerged from the above formalization, namely the classification of different defeasible argumentation frameworks based on features that can be ‘abstracted away’ in the SDEAR framework. The presentation is structured as follows: first, in section 2, we will briefly sketch how the SDEAR framework works. Then, in section 3 we will describe how different argumentation frameworks can be interrelated through SDEAR. Finally, section 4 concludes.
Eje: Inteligencia Artificial Distribuida, Aspectos Teóricos de la Inteligencia Artificial y Teoría de la Computación
Red de Universidades con Carreras en Informática (RedUNCI)
Materia
Ciencias Informáticas
defeasible argumentation
labelled deduction
knowledge representation
Frameworks
ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE
Theory of Computation
Distributed Systems
Nivel de accesibilidad
acceso abierto
Condiciones de uso
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/ar/
Repositorio
SEDICI (UNLP)
Institución
Universidad Nacional de La Plata
OAI Identificador
oai:sedici.unlp.edu.ar:10915/21629

id SEDICI_dd41d97d9d9626341f7b0ec4f2336758
oai_identifier_str oai:sedici.unlp.edu.ar:10915/21629
network_acronym_str SEDICI
repository_id_str 1329
network_name_str SEDICI (UNLP)
spelling A taxonomy for argumentative frameworks based on labelled deductionChesñevar, Carlos IvánCiencias Informáticasdefeasible argumentationlabelled deductionknowledge representationFrameworksARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCETheory of ComputationDistributed SystemsArtificial Intelligence has long dealt with the issue of finding a suitable formalization for reasoning with incomplete and potentially inconsistent information. Defeasible argumentation [SL92,CML00,PraVre99] has proven to be a successful approach in many respects, since it naturally resembles many aspects of commonsense reasoning (see [CML00,PraVre99] for details). Besides, recent work [PraVre99,BDKT97] has shown that defeasible argumentation constitutes a confluence point for characterizing many different approaches to non-monotonic reasoning. Nevertheless, the evolution of different, alternative formalisms for modeling argumentation has resulted in a number of models that share some common features (the notion of argument, attack between arguments, defeat, dialectical analysis, etc.). This constitutes a motivation for the definition of a unified ontology, under which these different features can be analyzed and inter-related. As a byproduct from such an ontology, a classification (or taxonomy) of argumentation frameworks in terms of knowledge encoding capabilities, expressive power, etc. would be possible. In [Che01] a logical framework for defeasible argumentation called SDEAR was developed. The SDEAR framework is based on labelled deductive systems [Gab96]. Labelled Deductive Systems offer an attractive approach to formalizing complex logical systems, since they allow to characterize the different components involved by using different sorts of labels. One of the motivations for developing this framework was namely the definition of a single, unified ontology to capture the main issues involved in defeasible argumentation by specifying a suitable underlying logical language and its associated inference rules. In this presentation we focus on a particular research line which emerged from the above formalization, namely the classification of different defeasible argumentation frameworks based on features that can be ‘abstracted away’ in the SDEAR framework. The presentation is structured as follows: first, in section 2, we will briefly sketch how the SDEAR framework works. Then, in section 3 we will describe how different argumentation frameworks can be interrelated through SDEAR. Finally, section 4 concludes.Eje: Inteligencia Artificial Distribuida, Aspectos Teóricos de la Inteligencia Artificial y Teoría de la ComputaciónRed de Universidades con Carreras en Informática (RedUNCI)2001-05info:eu-repo/semantics/conferenceObjectinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersionObjeto de conferenciahttp://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_5794info:ar-repo/semantics/documentoDeConferenciaapplication/pdfhttp://sedici.unlp.edu.ar/handle/10915/21629enginfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccesshttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/ar/Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.5 Argentina (CC BY-NC-SA 2.5)reponame:SEDICI (UNLP)instname:Universidad Nacional de La Platainstacron:UNLP2025-09-29T10:54:43Zoai:sedici.unlp.edu.ar:10915/21629Institucionalhttp://sedici.unlp.edu.ar/Universidad públicaNo correspondehttp://sedici.unlp.edu.ar/oai/snrdalira@sedici.unlp.edu.arArgentinaNo correspondeNo correspondeNo correspondeopendoar:13292025-09-29 10:54:43.223SEDICI (UNLP) - Universidad Nacional de La Platafalse
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv A taxonomy for argumentative frameworks based on labelled deduction
title A taxonomy for argumentative frameworks based on labelled deduction
spellingShingle A taxonomy for argumentative frameworks based on labelled deduction
Chesñevar, Carlos Iván
Ciencias Informáticas
defeasible argumentation
labelled deduction
knowledge representation
Frameworks
ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE
Theory of Computation
Distributed Systems
title_short A taxonomy for argumentative frameworks based on labelled deduction
title_full A taxonomy for argumentative frameworks based on labelled deduction
title_fullStr A taxonomy for argumentative frameworks based on labelled deduction
title_full_unstemmed A taxonomy for argumentative frameworks based on labelled deduction
title_sort A taxonomy for argumentative frameworks based on labelled deduction
dc.creator.none.fl_str_mv Chesñevar, Carlos Iván
author Chesñevar, Carlos Iván
author_facet Chesñevar, Carlos Iván
author_role author
dc.subject.none.fl_str_mv Ciencias Informáticas
defeasible argumentation
labelled deduction
knowledge representation
Frameworks
ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE
Theory of Computation
Distributed Systems
topic Ciencias Informáticas
defeasible argumentation
labelled deduction
knowledge representation
Frameworks
ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE
Theory of Computation
Distributed Systems
dc.description.none.fl_txt_mv Artificial Intelligence has long dealt with the issue of finding a suitable formalization for reasoning with incomplete and potentially inconsistent information. Defeasible argumentation [SL92,CML00,PraVre99] has proven to be a successful approach in many respects, since it naturally resembles many aspects of commonsense reasoning (see [CML00,PraVre99] for details). Besides, recent work [PraVre99,BDKT97] has shown that defeasible argumentation constitutes a confluence point for characterizing many different approaches to non-monotonic reasoning. Nevertheless, the evolution of different, alternative formalisms for modeling argumentation has resulted in a number of models that share some common features (the notion of argument, attack between arguments, defeat, dialectical analysis, etc.). This constitutes a motivation for the definition of a unified ontology, under which these different features can be analyzed and inter-related. As a byproduct from such an ontology, a classification (or taxonomy) of argumentation frameworks in terms of knowledge encoding capabilities, expressive power, etc. would be possible. In [Che01] a logical framework for defeasible argumentation called SDEAR was developed. The SDEAR framework is based on labelled deductive systems [Gab96]. Labelled Deductive Systems offer an attractive approach to formalizing complex logical systems, since they allow to characterize the different components involved by using different sorts of labels. One of the motivations for developing this framework was namely the definition of a single, unified ontology to capture the main issues involved in defeasible argumentation by specifying a suitable underlying logical language and its associated inference rules. In this presentation we focus on a particular research line which emerged from the above formalization, namely the classification of different defeasible argumentation frameworks based on features that can be ‘abstracted away’ in the SDEAR framework. The presentation is structured as follows: first, in section 2, we will briefly sketch how the SDEAR framework works. Then, in section 3 we will describe how different argumentation frameworks can be interrelated through SDEAR. Finally, section 4 concludes.
Eje: Inteligencia Artificial Distribuida, Aspectos Teóricos de la Inteligencia Artificial y Teoría de la Computación
Red de Universidades con Carreras en Informática (RedUNCI)
description Artificial Intelligence has long dealt with the issue of finding a suitable formalization for reasoning with incomplete and potentially inconsistent information. Defeasible argumentation [SL92,CML00,PraVre99] has proven to be a successful approach in many respects, since it naturally resembles many aspects of commonsense reasoning (see [CML00,PraVre99] for details). Besides, recent work [PraVre99,BDKT97] has shown that defeasible argumentation constitutes a confluence point for characterizing many different approaches to non-monotonic reasoning. Nevertheless, the evolution of different, alternative formalisms for modeling argumentation has resulted in a number of models that share some common features (the notion of argument, attack between arguments, defeat, dialectical analysis, etc.). This constitutes a motivation for the definition of a unified ontology, under which these different features can be analyzed and inter-related. As a byproduct from such an ontology, a classification (or taxonomy) of argumentation frameworks in terms of knowledge encoding capabilities, expressive power, etc. would be possible. In [Che01] a logical framework for defeasible argumentation called SDEAR was developed. The SDEAR framework is based on labelled deductive systems [Gab96]. Labelled Deductive Systems offer an attractive approach to formalizing complex logical systems, since they allow to characterize the different components involved by using different sorts of labels. One of the motivations for developing this framework was namely the definition of a single, unified ontology to capture the main issues involved in defeasible argumentation by specifying a suitable underlying logical language and its associated inference rules. In this presentation we focus on a particular research line which emerged from the above formalization, namely the classification of different defeasible argumentation frameworks based on features that can be ‘abstracted away’ in the SDEAR framework. The presentation is structured as follows: first, in section 2, we will briefly sketch how the SDEAR framework works. Then, in section 3 we will describe how different argumentation frameworks can be interrelated through SDEAR. Finally, section 4 concludes.
publishDate 2001
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv 2001-05
dc.type.none.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/conferenceObject
info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
Objeto de conferencia
http://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_5794
info:ar-repo/semantics/documentoDeConferencia
format conferenceObject
status_str publishedVersion
dc.identifier.none.fl_str_mv http://sedici.unlp.edu.ar/handle/10915/21629
url http://sedici.unlp.edu.ar/handle/10915/21629
dc.language.none.fl_str_mv eng
language eng
dc.rights.none.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/ar/
Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.5 Argentina (CC BY-NC-SA 2.5)
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
rights_invalid_str_mv http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/ar/
Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.5 Argentina (CC BY-NC-SA 2.5)
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv application/pdf
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv reponame:SEDICI (UNLP)
instname:Universidad Nacional de La Plata
instacron:UNLP
reponame_str SEDICI (UNLP)
collection SEDICI (UNLP)
instname_str Universidad Nacional de La Plata
instacron_str UNLP
institution UNLP
repository.name.fl_str_mv SEDICI (UNLP) - Universidad Nacional de La Plata
repository.mail.fl_str_mv alira@sedici.unlp.edu.ar
_version_ 1844615805090660352
score 13.070432