Introducing Preference-Based Argumentation to Inconsistent Ontological Knowledge Bases – long version –

نویسندگان

  • Madalina Croitoru
  • Rallou Thomopoulos
  • Srdjan Vesic
چکیده

Handling inconsistency is an inherent part of decision making in traditional agri-food chains – due to the various concerns involved. In order to explain the source of inconsistency and represent the existing conflicts in the ontological knowledge base, argumentation theory can be used. However, the current state of art methodology does not allow to take into account the level of significance of the knowledge expressed by the various ontological knowledge sources. We propose to use preferences in order to model those differences between formulas and evaluate our proposal practically by implementing it within the INRA platform and showing a use case using this formalism in a bread making decision support system.

برای دانلود رایگان متن کامل این مقاله و بیش از 32 میلیون مقاله دیگر ابتدا ثبت نام کنید

ثبت نام

اگر عضو سایت هستید لطفا وارد حساب کاربری خود شوید

منابع مشابه

Introducing Preference-Based Argumentation to Inconsistent Ontological Knowledge Bases

Handling inconsistency is an inherent part of decision making in traditional agri-food chains – due to the various concerns involved. In order to explain the source of inconsistency and represent the existing conflicts in the ontological knowledge base, argumentation theory can be used. However, the current state of art methodology does not allow to take into account the level of significance o...

متن کامل

On the Acceptability of Arguments in Preference-based Argumentation

Argumentation is a promising model for reasoning with uncertain and inconsistent knowledge. The key concept of acceptability enables to differentiate arguments and defeaters: The certainty of a proposition can then be evaluated through the most acceptable arguments for that proposition. In this paper, we investigate different complementary points of view: an acceptability based on the existence...

متن کامل

Managing Inconsistent Possibilistic Knowledge Bases by An Argumentation Approach

Inconsistent knowledge bases usually are regarded as an epistemic hell that have to be avoided at all costs. However, many times it is di cult or impossible to stay away of managing inconsistent knowledge bases. In this paper, we introduce an argumentation-based approach in order to manage inconsistent possibilistic knowledge bases. This approach will be exible enough for managing inconsistent ...

متن کامل

Formalizing and Studying Dialectical Explanations in Inconsistent Knowledge Bases. (Formalisation et Etude des Explications Dialectiques dans les Bases de Connaissances Incohérentes)

Knowledge bases are deductive databases where the machinery of logic is used to represent domain-specific and general-purpose knowledge over existing data. In the existential rules framework, a knowledge base is composed of two layers: the data layer which represents the factual knowledge, and the ontological layer that incorporates rules of deduction and negative constraints. The main reasonin...

متن کامل

Handling Inconsistency with Preference-Based Argumentation

Argumentation is a promising approach for handling inconsistent knowledge bases, based on the justification of plausible conclusions by arguments. Due to inconsistency, arguments may be attacked by counterarguments. The problem is thus to evaluate the arguments in order to select the most acceptable ones. The aim of this paper is to make a bridge between the argumentation-based and the coherenc...

متن کامل

ذخیره در منابع من


  با ذخیره ی این منبع در منابع من، دسترسی به آن را برای استفاده های بعدی آسان تر کنید

عنوان ژورنال:

دوره   شماره 

صفحات  -

تاریخ انتشار 2016