Abstract
In this paper we introduce a proposal to give argumentation capacity to databases. A database is said to have argumentation capacity if it has the capacity to extract from the database a set of interacting arguments for and against claims and to determine the overall status of some information given all the interactions among all the arguments. We represent conflicts among arguments using a construct called contestation, which permits us to represent verious degrees of conflict among arguments. Argumentation databases as proposed here give answers to queries which are annotated with confidence values reflecting the degree of confidence one should have in the answer, where the degree of confidence is determined by the overall effect of all the conflicts and interactions among arguments.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
K.R. Apt, H.A. Blair, and A. Walker. Towards a Theory of Declarative Knowledge. In J. Minker, editor, Foundations of Deductive Databases and Logic Programming, pages 89–148. Morgan Kaufmann Pub., Washington, D.C., 1988.
S. Abramsky and A. Jung. Domain theory. In S. Abramsky, D. M. Gabbay, and T. S. E. Maibaum, editors, Handbook of Logic in Computer Science, volume 3, pages 1–168. Oxford Univ. Press, 1994.
A. Bouguettaya, B. Benatallah, and A. Elmagarmid. Interconnecting Heterogeneous Information Systems. Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1998.
A. Bonderenko, P.M. Dung, R.A. Kowalski, and F. Toni. An abstract argumentation theoretic approach to default reasoning. Artificial Intelligence, 93:63–101, 1997.
P.M. Dung. The acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmontonic reasoning, logic programming, and n-person games. Artificial Intelligence, 77:321–357, 1995.
F. Fages. A new fixpoint semantics for general logic programs compared with the well-founded and stable model semantics. New Generation Computing, 9:425–443, 1991.
T. Gaasterland and J. Lobo. Qualified answers that reflect user needs and preferences. In Proceedings of the 20th VLDB Conference, 1994.
M. Kifer and V.S. Subrahmanian. Theory of generalized annotated logic programming and its applications. Journal of Logic Programming, 12:335–368, 1992.
R. Kowalski and F. Toni. Abstract argumentation. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 4:275–296, 1996.
J. Lloyd. Foundations of Logic Programming. Springer-Verlag, second edition edition, 1987.
R.P. Loui. Defeat among arguments: a system of defeasible inference. Computational Intelligence, 2:100–106, 1987.
J.L. Pollock. Defeasible reasoning. Cognitive Science, 11:481–518, 1987.
Shekhar Pradhan. Semantics of Normal Logic Programs and Contested Information. In Proc. 11th IEEE Symposium on Logic in Computer Science, 1996.
Shekhar Pradhan. Logic Programs with Contested Information. In M. Maher ed. Proc. Joint International Conference and Symposium on Logic Programming, MIT Press, 1996.
Shekhar Pradhan. Reasoning with conflicting information in artificial intelligence and database theory. Technical Report CS-TR-4211, Dept of Computer Science, University of Maryland, College Park, Md 20742, 2001. Ph.D. dissertation.
Henry Praaken and Giovanni Sartor. A system for defeasible argumentation with defeasible priorities. In Proc. of the International Conference on Formal Aspects of Practical Reasoning. Springer Verlag Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence No. 1085, 1996.
Henry Praaken and Giovanni Sartor. A dialectical model of assessing conflicting arguments in legal reasoning. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 4:331–368, 1996.
Henry Praaken and Giovanni Sartor. Argument-based extended logic programming with defeasible priorities. Journal of Applied Non-classical Logics, 7:25–75, 1997.
Henry Praaken and Giovanni Sartor. Modelling reasoning with precedents in a formal dialogue game. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 6:231–287, 1998.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2003 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this paper
Cite this paper
Pradhan, S. (2003). Connecting Databases with Argumentation. In: Bartenstein, O., Geske, U., Hannebauer, M., Yoshie, O. (eds) Web Knowledge Management and Decision Support. INAP 2001. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 2543. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-36524-9_14
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-36524-9_14
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-540-00680-0
Online ISBN: 978-3-540-36524-2
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive