Argumentation-Supported Information Distribution in a Multiagent System for Knowledge Management

  • Ramón F. Brena
  • Carlos I. Chesñevar
  • José L. Aguirre
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4049)


Disseminating pieces of knowledge among the members of large organizations is a well known problem in Knowledge Management, involving several decision-making processes. The JITIK multiagent framework has been successfully used for just-in-time delivering highly customized notifications to the adequate users in large distributed organizations. However, in JITIK as well as in other similar approaches it is common to deal with incomplete information and conflicting policies, making difficult to make decisions about whether to deliver or not a specific piece of information or knowledge on the basis of a rationally justified procedure. This paper presents an approach to cope with this problem by integrating JITIK with a defeasible argumentation formalism. Conflicts among policies are solved on the basis of a dialectical analysis whose outcome determines whether a particular information item should be delivered to a specific user.


Argumentation knowledge management information systems 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Aguirre, J.L., Brena, R., Cantu, F.J.: Multiagent-based knowledge networks. Expert Systems with Applications 20(1), 65–75 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ait-Kaci, H.: Warren’s Abstract Machine: A Tutorial Reconstruction. MIT Press, Cambridge (1991)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Amgoud, L., Maudet, N., Parsons, S.: An argumentation-based semantics for agent communication languages. In: Proc. of the 15th. European Conference in Artificial (ECAI), Lyon, France, pp. 38–42 (2002)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Amgoud, L., Prade, H.: Reaching agreement through argumentation: A possibilistic approach. In: Proc. of 9th Intl. Conf. on Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR 2004), pp. 175–182 (2004)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Antoniou, G., Billington, D., Governatori, G., Maher, M.: Representation results for defeasible logic. ACM Trans. on Computational Logic 2(2), 255–287 (2001)zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Atkinson, R., Court, R., Ward, J.: The knowledge economy: Knowledge producers and knowledge users. The New Economic Index (November 1998),
  7. 7.
    Bellifemine, F., Poggi, A., Rimassa, G.: Jade - a fipa-compliant agent framework. In: Proceedings of PAAM 1999, London (1999)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Brena, R., Aguirre, J.L., Trevino, A.C.: Just-in-time information and knowledge: Agent technology for km bussiness process. In: Proc. of the 2001 IEEE Conference on Systems, Man and Cybernetics, Tucson, Arizona. IEEE Press, Los Alamitos (2001)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Brena, R., Aguirre, J.L., Trevino, A.C.: Just-in-time knowledge flow for distributed organizations using agents technology. In: Proc. of the 2001 Knowledge Technologies 2001 Conf., Austin, Texas, March 4-7 (2001)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Brena, R., Ceballos, H.: A hybrid local-global approach for handling ontologies in a multiagent system. In: Yager, R.R., Sgurev, V.S. (eds.) Proc. of the 2004 Intelligent Systems International Conference, Varna, Bulgaria, pp. 261–266. IEEE Press, Los Alamitos (2004)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Carbogim, D., Robertson, D., Lee, J.: Argument-based applications to knowledge engineering. The Knowledge Engineering Review 15(2), 119–149 (2000)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Carrillo, J.: Managing knowledge-based value systems. Journal of Knowledge Management 1(4) (June 1998)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ceballos, H., Brena, R.: Finding compromises between local and global ontology querying in multiagent systems. In: Meersman, R., Tari, Z. (eds.) OTM 2004. LNCS, vol. 3291, pp. 999–1011. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Chesñevar, C., Dix, J., Stolzenburg, F., Simari, G.: Relating Defeasible and Normal Logic Programming through Transformation Properties. Theoretical Computer Science 290(1), 499–529 (2003)zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Chesñevar, C., Maguitman, A.: An Argumentative Approach to Assessing Natural Language Usage based on the Web Corpus. In: Proc. of the ECAI 2004 Conference, Valencia, Spain, pp. 581–585 (August 2004)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Chesñevar, C., Maguitman, A., Loui, R.: Logical Models of Argument. ACM Computing Surveys 32(4), 337–383 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Chesñevar, C., Maguitman, A., Simari, G.: Argument-Based Critics and Recommenders: A Qualitative Perspective on User Support Systems. Journal of Data and Knowledge Engineering (to appear, 2005)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Chesñevar, C., Sabate, M., Maguitman, A.: An argument-based decision support system for assessing natural language usage on the basis of the web corpus. Intl. Journal of Intelligent Systems (to appear, 2005)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Chesñevar, C., Simari, G., Alsinet, T., Godo, L.: A Logic Programming Framework for Possibilistic Argumentation with Vague Knowledge. In: Proc. Intl. Conf. Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence (UAI), Canada, pp. 76–84 (July 2004)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Chesñevar, C., Simari, G., Godo, L.: Computing dialectical trees efficiently in possibilistic defeasible logic programming. In: Baral, C., Greco, G., Leone, N., Terracina, G. (eds.) LPNMR 2005. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 3662, pp. 158–171. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    García, A., Simari, G.: Defeasible Logic Programming: An Argumentative Approach. Theory and Practice of Logic Programming 4(1), 95–138 (2004)zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Gómez, S., Chesñevar, C.: A Hybrid Approach to Pattern Classification Using Neural Networks and Defeasible Argumentation. In: Proc. of 17th Intl. FLAIRS Conf., Miami, Florida, USA, pp. 393–398. AAAI Press, Menlo Park (2004)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Gómez, S., Chesñevar, C., Simari, G.: Incorporating defeasible knowledge and argumentative reasoning in web-based forms. In: Proc. of the 3rd Intl. Workshop on Intelligent Techniques for Web Personalization (ITWP). 19th IJCAI Conference, Edimburgh, UK (August 2005) (to appear)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Horibe, F.: Managing Knowledge Workers. John Wiley and Sons, Chichester (1999)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Hunter, A.: Hybrid argumentation systems for structured news reports. Knowledge Engineering Review (16), 295–329 (2001)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Jones, A., Sergot, M.: A formal characterisation of institutionalised power. J. of the IGLP 4(3), 429–445 (1996)MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Karacapilidis, N., Gordon, T.: Dialectical planning: Designing a mediating system for group decision making (1996)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Liebowitz, J., Beckman, T.: Knowledge Organizations. St. Lucie Press (1998)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Liebowitz, J., Wilcox, L.: Knowledge Management. CRC Press, Boca Raton (1997)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Lowrance, J., Harrison, I., Rodriguez, A.: Structured argumentation for analysis. In: Procs. of the 12th Intl. Conf. on Systems Research, Informatics, and Cybernetics, Baden-Baden, Germany, pp. 47–57 (August 2000)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Luo, Z., Sheth, A., Miller, J., Kochut, K.: Defeasible workflow, its computation and exception handling. In: Proc. of the CSCW 1998 Workshop: Towards Adaptive Workflow Systems, Seattle, WA (November 1998)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Maudet, N., Moore, D.J.: Dialogue games for computer supported collaborative argumentation. In: Proceedings of the 1st Workshop on Computer supported collaborative argumentation (CSCA 1999), Standford, USA (1999)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Norman, T., Preece, A., Chalmers, S., Jennings, N., Luck, M., Dang, V., Nguyen, T., Deora, V., Shao, J., Gray, W., Fiddian, N.: Conoise: Agent-based formation of virtual organisations. In: Research and Development in Intelligent Systems XX: Proceedings of AI 2003, 23rd International Conference on Innovative Techniques and Applications of Artificial Intelligence, pp. 353–366 (2003)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Parsons, S., Jennings, N.R.: Argumentation and multi-agent decision making. In: Proceedings of the AAAI Spring Symposium on Interactive and Mixed-Initiative Decision Making, Stanford, USA, pp. 89–91 (1998)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Parsons, S., McBurney, P.: Argumentation-based Dialogues for Agent Coordination. Group Decision and Negotiation (to appear, 2004)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Parsons, S., Sierrra, C., Jennings, N.: Agents that Reason and Negotiate by Arguing. Journal of Logic and Computation 8, 261–292 (1998)zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Prakken, H., Sartor, G.: The role of logic in computational models of legal argument - a critical survey. In: Kakas, A., Sadri, F. (eds.) Computational Logic: Logic Programming and Beyond, pp. 342–380. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Prakken, H., Vreeswijk, G.: Logical Systems for Defeasible Argumentation. In: Gabbay, D., Guenther, F. (eds.) Handbook of Phil. Logic, pp. 219–318. Kluwer, Dordrecht (2002)Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Rahwan, I., Ramchurn, S., Jennings, N., Mcburney, P., Parsons, S., Sonenberg, L.: Argumentation-based negotiation. Knowl. Eng. Rev. 18(4), 343–375 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Ramirez, E., Brena, R.: Web-enabling multiagent systems. In: Lemaître, C., Reyes, C.A., González, J.A. (eds.) IBERAMIA 2004. LNCS, vol. 3315, pp. 53–61. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Reed, C., Walton, D.: Applications of argumentation schemes. In: Conference of the Ontario Society for the Study of Argument (OSSA 2001), Windsor, Canada (2001)Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Sadri, F., Toni, F., Torroni, P.: Dialogues for negotiation: Agent varieties and dialogue sequences. In: Meyer, J.-J.C., Tambe, M. (eds.) ATAL 2001. LNCS, vol. 2333, pp. 405–421. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Sierra, C., Noriega, P.: Agent-mediated interaction. From auctions to negotiation and argumentation. In: d’Inverno, M., Luck, M., Fisher, M., Preist, C. (eds.) UKMAS Workshops 1996-2000. LNCS, vol. 2403, pp. 27–48. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Simari, G., Loui, R.: A Mathematical Treatment of Defeasible Reasoning and its Implementation. Art. Intelligence 53, 125–157 (1992)CrossRefMathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Stankevicius, A., Garcia, A., Simari, G.: Compilation techniques for defeasible logic programs. In: Proc. of the 6th Intl. Congress on Informatics Engineering, Univ. de Buenos Aires, Bs. Aires, Argentina, ed. Fiuba, pp. 1530–1541 (April 2000)Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Stolzenburg, F., García, A., Chesñevar, C., Simari, G.: Computing Generalized Specificity. J. of Non-Classical Logics 13(1), 87–113 (2003)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Verheij, B.: Artificial argument assistants for defeasible argumentation. Artificial Intelligence Journal 150, 291–324 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Wasson, G., Humphrey, M.: Toward explicit policy management for virtual organizations. In: IEEE Workshop on Policies for Distributed Systems and Network (POLICY 2003), pp. 173–182 (June 2003)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ramón F. Brena
    • 1
  • Carlos I. Chesñevar
    • 2
  • José L. Aguirre
    • 1
  1. 1.Centro de Sistemas Inteligentes – Tecnológico de MonterreyMonterreyMéxico
  2. 2.Artificial Intelligence Research Group, Department of Computer ScienceUniversitat de LleidaLleidaSpain

Personalised recommendations