Connecting Databases with Argumentation

  • Shekhar Pradhan
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 2543)

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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. [ABW88]
    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.Google Scholar
  2. [AJ94]
    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.Google Scholar
  3. [BBE98]
    A. Bouguettaya, B. Benatallah, and A. Elmagarmid. Interconnecting Heterogeneous Information Systems. Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1998.Google Scholar
  4. [BDKT97]
    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.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  5. [Dun95]
    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.MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  6. [Fag91]
    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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. [GL94]
    T. Gaasterland and J. Lobo. Qualified answers that reflect user needs and preferences. In Proceedings of the 20th VLDB Conference, 1994.Google Scholar
  8. [KS92]
    M. Kifer and V.S. Subrahmanian. Theory of generalized annotated logic programming and its applications. Journal of Logic Programming, 12:335–368, 1992.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  9. [KT96]
    R. Kowalski and F. Toni. Abstract argumentation. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 4:275–296, 1996.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. [Llo87]
    J. Lloyd. Foundations of Logic Programming. Springer-Verlag, second edition edition, 1987.Google Scholar
  11. [Lou87]
    R.P. Loui. Defeat among arguments: a system of defeasible inference. Computational Intelligence, 2:100–106, 1987.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. [Pol87]
    J.L. Pollock. Defeasible reasoning. Cognitive Science, 11:481–518, 1987.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. [Pra96a]
    Shekhar Pradhan. Semantics of Normal Logic Programs and Contested Information. In Proc. 11th IEEE Symposium on Logic in Computer Science, 1996.Google Scholar
  14. [Pra96b]
    Shekhar Pradhan. Logic Programs with Contested Information. In M. Maher ed. Proc. Joint International Conference and Symposium on Logic Programming, MIT Press, 1996.Google Scholar
  15. [Pra01]
    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.Google Scholar
  16. [PS96a]
    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.Google Scholar
  17. [PS96b]
    Henry Praaken and Giovanni Sartor. A dialectical model of assessing conflicting arguments in legal reasoning. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 4:331–368, 1996.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. [PS97]
    Henry Praaken and Giovanni Sartor. Argument-based extended logic programming with defeasible priorities. Journal of Applied Non-classical Logics, 7:25–75, 1997.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  19. [PS98]
    Henry Praaken and Giovanni Sartor. Modelling reasoning with precedents in a formal dialogue game. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 6:231–287, 1998.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Shekhar Pradhan
    • 1
  1. 1.Central Missouri State UniversityUSA

Personalised recommendations