Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Semantic information and knowledge integration through argumentative reasoning to support intelligent decision making

  • Published:
Information Systems Frontiers Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The availability of integrated, high quality information is a pre-requisite for a decision support system (DSS) to aid in the decision-making process. The introduction of semantic web ensures the seamless integration of information derived from diverse sources and transforms the DSS to an adoptable and flexible Semantic Web-DSS (Web-DSS). However, due to the monotonic nature of the layered development of semantic web, it lacks the capability to represent, reason and integrate incomplete and conflicting information. This, in turn, renders an enterprise incapable of knowledge integration; that is, integration of information about a subject that could potentially be incomplete, inconsistent and distributed among different Web-DSS within or across enterprises. In this article, we address the issues of incomplete and inconsistent semantic information and knowledge integration by using argumentation and argumentation schemes. We discuss the Argumentation-enabled Information Integration Web-DSS (Web@IDSS) along with its syntax and semantics for semantic information integration, and devise a methodology for sharing the results of Web@IDSS in Argument Interchange Format (AIF) format. We also discuss Argumentation-enabled Knowledge Integration Web-DSS (Web@KIDSS) for semantic knowledge integration. We provide formal syntax and semantics for the Web@KIDSS, propose a conceptual framework, and describe it in detail. We present the algorithms for knowledge integration and the prototype application for validation of results.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13
Fig. 14
Fig. 15

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-guide/

  2. http://www.w3.org/Submission/SWRL/

  3. http://ruleml.org

  4. The directed arrow are just to emulate the edge from S-node to N-node claim of the argument.

  5. http://www.argdf.org/source/ArgDFProtegeOntology.zip

  6. For simplicity we have not mentioned the identifers of the arguments.

  7. http://download.getabest.com/new/php-tree-graph-ext-222943.html

  8. http://www.ailab.si/martin/abml/

References

  • Alaranta, M., & Henningsson S. (2008). An approach to analyzing and planning post-merger is integration: insights from two field studies. Information Systems Frontiers, 10, 307–319.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Antoniou, G., & Bikakis, A. (2007). Dr-prolog: a system for defeasible reasoning with rules and ontologies on the semantic web. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, 19(2), 233.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Antoniou, G., Baldoni, M., Bonatti, P.A., Nejdl, W., Olmedilla, D. (2004). Rule-based policy specification. In Yu, T., Jajodia, S. (Eds.), Secure data management in decentralized systems (pp. 169–216, Vol. 33). US: Springer

    Google Scholar 

  • Antoniou, G., Damasio, C.V., Grosof, B., Horrocks, I., Kifer, M., Maluszynski, J., Patel-Schneider, P.F. (2005). Combining rules and ontologies: A survey. Tech. Rep. IST-2004-506779 REWERSE Deliverable I3-D3, Technical Report IST506779/Linköping/I3-D3/D/PU/a1. Linköping University

  • Ba, S., Lang, K.R., Whinston, A.B. (1997). Enterprise decision support using intranet technology. Decision Support Systems, 20(2), 99–134. doi:10.1016/S0167-9236(96)00068-1, http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167923696000681.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baroni, P., Fogli, D., Guida, G. (1998). Modeling argumentation in practical reasoning: a conceptual analysis of argument life cycle. In 7th international conference on information processing and management of uncertainty in knowledge-based systems (pp. 1790–1797). Paris.

  • Bassiliades, N., Antoniou, G., Vlahavas, I. (2004). Dr-device: A defeasible logic system for the semantic web. Principles and practice of semantic web reasoning (pp 134–148).

  • Benkö, T., Lukácsy, G., Fokt, A., Szeredi, P. (2003). Information integration through reasoning on meta-data. In AI moves to IA: Workshop on artificial intelligence, information access, and mobile computing.

  • Berners-Lee, T. (2000). Semantic web - xml2000, W3C. http://www.w3.org/2000/Talks/1206-xml2k-tbl/. Accessed 1 March 2012

  • Bex, F., Prakken, H., Reed, C. (2010). A formal analysis of the aif in terms of the aspic framework. In 3rd international conference on computational models of argument.

  • Bhatt, M., Flahive, A., Wouters, C., Rahayu, W., Taniar, D. (2006). Move: a distributed framework for materialized ontology view extraction. Algorithmica, 45, 457–481. doi:10.1007/s00453-006-1221-2, http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1165166.1165175.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buccella, A., Cechich, A., Fillottrani, P. (2009). Ontology-driven geographic information integration: a survey of current approaches. Computers & Geosciences 35(4), 710–723. Geoscience Knowledge Representation in Cyberinfrastructure.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carlsson, C, & Turban, E. (2002). Dss: directions for the next decade. Decision Support Systems, 33(2), 105–110.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ceccaroni, L., Cortés, U., Sànchez-Marrè, M. (2004). Ontowedss: augmenting environmental decision-support systems with ontologies. Environmental Modelling & Software, 19(9), 785–797. Environmental Sciences and Artificial Intelligence.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chesnevar, C., McGinnis, J., Modgil, S., Rahwan, I., Reed, C., Simari, G., South, M., Vreeswijk, G., Willmott, S. (2006a). Towards an argument interchange format. The Knowledge Engineering Review, 21(4), 293.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chesnevar, C.I., Maguitman, A.G., Simari, G.R. (2006b). Argument-based critics and recommenders: a qualitative perspective on user support systems. Data & Knowledge Engineering, 59(2), 293.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cheung, K., & Cheong, M.P. (2007). Intelligent on-line decision support tools for market operators. In International conference on intelligent systems applications to power systems, 2007 (pp. 1–6).

  • Chua, W.W.K., & Goh, A.E.S. (2010). Techniques for discovering correspondences between ontologies. International Journal of Web and Grid Services Archive, 6(3), 213–243. doi:10.1504/IJWGS.2010.035090.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fan, X., Toni, F., Hussain, A. (2010). Two-agent conflict resolution with assumption-based argumentation. In Proceeding of the 2010 conference on computational models of argument: Proceedings of COMMA 2010 (pp. 231–242). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: IOS Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Flahive, A., Rahayu, W., Taniar, D., Apduhan, B. (2005). A distributed ontology framework in the semantic grid environment. In 19th international conference on Advanced Information Networking and Applications, 2005. AINA 2005 (pp. 193–196, Vol. 2). doi:10.1109/AINA.2005.19.

  • Flahive, A., Taniar, D., Rahayu, W., Apduhan, B.O. (2009). Ontology tailoring in the semantic grid. Computer Standards & Interfaces, 31(5), 870–885. doi:10.1016/j.csi.2008.03.016, http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0920548908000330. Specification, Standards and Information Management for Distributed Systems.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garcia, A.J., & Simari, G.R. (2004). Defeasible logic programming: an argumentative approach. Theory and Practice of Logic Programming, 4(1+2), 95–138.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garcia-Crespo, A., Ruiz-Mezcua, B., Lopez-Cuadrado, J.L., Gonzalez-Carrasco, I. (2011). Semantic model for knowledge representation in e-business. Knowledge-Based Systems, 24(2), 282–296. doi:10.1016/j.knosys.2010.09.006.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Godden, D.J., & Walton, D. (2007) Advances in the theory of argumentation schemes and critical questions. Informal Logic, 27, 267–292.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grosof BN, Gandhe MD, Finin TW (2002) Sweetjess: Translating damlruleml to jess. In Proceedings of the international workshop on rule markup languages for business rules on the semantic web.

  • Hurt, C.D. (1998). Nonmonotonic logic for use in information retrieval: an exploratory paper. Information processing & management, 34(1), 35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Iyad Rahwan, C.R. (2009). The argument interchange format, argumentation in artifical intelligence. Springer.

  • Janjua, N.K., & Hussain, F.K. (2011). Web@idss : argumentation-enabled web-based idss for reasoning over incomplete and conflicting information. Knowledge-Based Systems, 32, 9–27. doi:10.1016/j.knosys.2011.09.009, http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0950705111002103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kartha, N., & Novstrup, A. (2009). Ontology and rule based knowledge representation for situation management and decision support. In Mott, S., Buford, J.F., Jakobson, G., Mendenhall, J.M. (Eds.), Intelligent sensing, situation management, impact assessment, and cyber-sensing. SPIE.

  • Katie Atkinson, T.B.C. (2008). Abstract argumentation scheme frameworks, artificial intelligence: Methodology, systems, and applications (Vol. 5253/2008). Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kim, J., Kim, P., Chung, H. (2011). Ontology construction using online ontologies based on selection, mapping and merging. International Journal of Web and Grid Services, 7, 170–189.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kontopoulos, E., Bassiliades, N., Antoniou, G. (2011). Visualizing semantic web proofs of defeasible logic in the DR-DEVICE system. Knowledge-Based Systems, 24(3), 406–419. doi:10.1016/j.knosys.2010.12.001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, T.B. (2003). The semantic web and challenges. W3C. http://www.w3.org/2003/Talks/01-sweb-tbl/. Accessed 1 March 2012.

  • Lee, T.B. (2005). Www 2005 keynote. W3C. http://www.w3.org/2005/Talks/0511-keynote-tbl/. Accessed 1 March 2012.

  • Lee, T.B. (2006). Artificial intelligence and the semantic web: Aaai 2006 keynote. W3C. http://www.w3.org/2006/Talks/0718-aaai-tbl/Overview.html. Accessed 1 March 2012.

  • Letia, I., & Groza, A. (2008). A planning-based approach for enacting world wide argument web. In Badica, C., Mangioni, G., Carchiolo, V., Burdescu, D. (Eds.), Intelligent distributed computing, systems and applications, studies in computational intelligence (pp. 137–146, Vol. 162). Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Liu, S., Duffy, A., Whitfield, R., Boyle, I. (2010). Integration of decision support systems to improve decision support performance. Knowledge and Information Systems, 22, 261–286.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Loui, R.P. (1998). Process and policy: Resource-bounded nondemonstrative reasoning. Computational intelligence, 14(1), 1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • March, S.T., & Hevner, A.R. (2007). Integrated decision support systems: a data warehousing perspective. Decision Support Systems, 43(3), 1031–1043. Integrated Decision Support.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morge, M. (2008). The hedgehog and the fox: An argumentation-based decision support system. In: Proceedings of the 4th international conference on Argumentation in Multi-agent Systems, ArgMAS’07 (pp. 114–131). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Muthaiyah, S., & Kerschberg, L. (2007). Virtual organization security policies: an ontology-based integration approach. Information Systems Frontiers, 9, 505–514. doi:10.1007/s10796-007-9050-7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nguyen, H.Q., Taniar, D., Rahayu, J.W., Nguyen, K. (2011). Double-layered schema integration of heterogeneous xml sources. Journal of Systems and Software, 84(1), 63–76. doi:10.1016/j.jss.2010.07.055. Information Networking and Software Services.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nicolicin-Georgescu, V., Benatier, V., Lehn, R., Briand, H. (2010). Ontology-based autonomic computing for decision support systems management: Shared ressources allocation between groups of data warehouses. In 2010 3rd international conference on Communication Theory, Reliability, and Quality of Service (CTRQ) (pp. 233–236). doi:10.1109/CTRQ.2010.46.

  • Norta, A., & Eshuis, R. (2010). Specification and verification of harmonized business-process collaborations. Information Systems Frontiers, 12, 457–479. doi:10.1007/s10796-009-9164-1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Noy, N.F. (2004). Semantic integration: a survey of ontology-based approaches. SIGMOD Record, 33, 65–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Osei-Bryson, K.M., & Ngwenyama, O. (2008). Decision models for information systems management. Information Systems Frontiers, 10, 277–279.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Palau, R.M., & Moens, M.F. (2009). Argumentation mining: the detection, classification and structure of arguments in text. In ICAIL ’09: Proceedings of the 12th international conference on artificial intelligence and law (pp. 98–107). New York, NY: ACM.

  • Pesic, M., & van der Aalst, W. (2006). A declarative approach for flexible business processes management. In Eder, J., & Dustdar, S. (Eds.), Business process management workshops, lecture notes in computer science (Vol. 4103, pp 169–180). Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer. doi:10.1007/11837862_18.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Power, D.J. (2002). Decision support systems: Concepts and resources for managers. Greenwood Publishing Group.

  • Power, D.J., & Sharda, R. (2009). Decision support systems. In Nof, S.Y. (Ed.), Springer handbook of automation (pp. 1539–1548). Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rahwan, I., Zablith, F., Reed, C. (2007a). Towards large scale argumentation support on the semantic web. In AAAI’07: Proceedings of the 22nd national conference on artificial intelligence (pp. 1446–1451). AAAI Press.

  • Rahwan, I., Zablitha, F., Reed, C. (2007b). Laying the foundations for a world wide argument web. Artificial intelligence, 171(10–15), 897.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Salam, A. (2007). Design and implementation of semantic decision support system for supplier performance contract monitoring and execution: Integrating description logics, semantic web rules and service-oriented computing in the context of the extended enterprise. In Americas conference on information systems.

  • Seng, J.L., & Kong, I.L. (2009). A schema and ontology-aided intelligent information integration. Expert Systems with Applications, 36, 10,538–10,550.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shim, J.P., Warkentin, M., Courtney, J.F., Power, D.J., Sharda, R., Carlsson, C. (2002). Past, present, and future of decision support technology. Decision Support Systems, 33(2), 111–126.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Silverman, B.G., Bachann, M., Al-Akharas, K. (2001). Implications of buyer decision theory for design of e-commerce websites. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 55(5), 815–844.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Suguri, H., Ahmad, H.F., Pasha, M., Khalid, N. (2008). Foundation for autonomous semantic grid. USA: Nova Science Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Toni, F. (2007). E-business in argugrid. In Veit, D., & Altmann, J. (Eds.), Grid economics and business models, lecture notes in computer science (Vol. 4685, pp. 164–169). Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Torroni, P., Gavanelli, M., Chesani, F. (2009). Arguing on the semantic grid. USA: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Toulmin, S.E. (2003). The uses of argument. Cambridge University Press.

  • Vahidov, R., Kersten, G.E. (2004). Decision station: situating decision support systems. Decision Support Systems, 38(2), 283–303.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walton, D. (2009). Argumentation in artificial intelligence, chap argumentation theory: A very short introduction (pp. 1–24). Springer.

  • Wang, H.J., Zhao, J.L., Zhang, L.J. (2009). Policy-driven process mapping (pdpm): discovering process models from business policies. Decision Support Systems, 48(1), 267–281. doi:10.1016/j.dss.2009.08.006, http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167923609002012, Information Product Markets.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Xue, Y., Ghenniwa, H., Shen, W. (2009). Ontological view-driven semantic integration in collaborative networks. In Camarinha-Matos, L., Paraskakis, I., Afsarmanesh, H. (Eds.), Leveraging knowledge for innovation in collaborative networks, IFIP advances in information and communication technology (Vol. 307, pp. 311–318). Boston: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yang, X., Bo, Z., Bei, Z. (2009). Research on semantic decision support system. In WRI World congress on computer science and information engineering, 2009 (Vol. 5, pp. 687–691). doi:10.1109/CSIE.2009.364.

  • Zarefsky, D. (2009). Argumentation: The study of effective reasoning (2nd Edn., Vol. 2009). Northwestern University. URL: http://www.teach12.com/ttcx/CourseDescLong2.aspx?cid=4294.

  • Zhou, J., Yang, H., Wang, M., Zhang, R., Yue, T., Zhang, S., Mo, R. (2010). A survey of semantic enterprise information integration. In: 2010 3rd International Conference on Information Sciences and Interaction Sciences (ICIS) (pp. 234–239).

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Information Systems, Curtin Business School, Curtin University, Perth, WA, Australia

    Naeem Khalid Janjua & Omar Khadeer Hussain

  2. Decision Support and e-Service Intelligence (DeSI) Lab, Quantum Computation and Intelligent Systems (QCIS), School of Software, Faculty of Engineering and Information Technology, University of Technology Sydney, Ultimo, NSW, 2007, Australia

    Farookh Khadeer Hussain

Authors
  1. Naeem Khalid Janjua
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Farookh Khadeer Hussain
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Omar Khadeer Hussain
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Farookh Khadeer Hussain.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Janjua, N.K., Hussain, F.K. & Hussain, O.K. Semantic information and knowledge integration through argumentative reasoning to support intelligent decision making. Inf Syst Front 15, 167–192 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10796-012-9365-x

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10796-012-9365-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation