Advertisement

Problem Definition

Chapter
Part of the Springer Theses book series (Springer Theses)

Abstract

In Chap.  2, a review of the literature on argumentation, philosophical and logic-based models, argumentation frameworks and implementations was presented. The current reasoning approaches being employed in Semantic Web applications were also discussed and categorised. Several advancements that have been made in terms of reasoning on information on the Semantic Web were outlined.

References

  1. Bassiliades N, Antoniou G, Vlahavas I (2004) Dr-device: A defeasible logic system for the semantic web. In: Ohlbach, H.J. and Schaffert, S (eds) Principles and Practice of Semantic Web Reasoning, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 3208. Springer, Berlin, p 134–148Google Scholar
  2. Burstein F, Gregor S (1999) The systems development or engineering approach to research in information systems: An action research perspective. In: Hope B and Yoong P (eds) Proceedings of the 10th Australasian Conference on Information Systems. Wellington, Australia, pp 122–134Google Scholar
  3. Carlsson C, Turban E (2002) DSS: directions for the next decade. Decis Support Syst 33(2):105–110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Chesnevar C, McGinnis J, Modgil S, Rahwan I, Reed C, Simari G, South M, Vreeswijk G, Willmott S (2006) Towards an argument interchange format. Knowl Eng Rev 21(4):293–316CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cohen R (1987) Analyzing the structure of argumentative discourse. Comput linguist 13(1–2):11–24Google Scholar
  6. Grosof B, Gandhe M, Finin T, et al. (2002) Sweetjess: Translating damlruleml to Jess. In: Proceedings of the International Workshop on Rule Markup Languages for Business Rules on the Semantic Web at 1st International Semantic Web Conference, vol 60. Sardinia, ItalyGoogle Scholar
  7. Iyad Rahwan CR (2009) The Argument Interchange Format. In: Rahwan I, Simari GR (eds) Argumentation in Artifical Intelligence, Springer, chap 19, pp 383–402.Google Scholar
  8. Kaplan B, Maxwell J (2005) Qualitative research methods for evaluating computer information systems. In: Anderson J, Aydin C (eds) Evaluating the organizational impact of healthcare information systems. Health informatics, Springer, New York, chap 2, pp 30–55, doi: 10.1007/0-387-30329-4_2
  9. McTavish DG, Loether HJ (1999) Social research. Allyn & Bacon, LondonGoogle Scholar
  10. Nunamaker JF Jr, Chen M, Purdin TDM (1990) Systems development in information systems research. J Manag Inf Syst 7(3):89–106, http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=116927.116932 Google Scholar
  11. Pham D, Governatori G, Raboczi S, Newman A, Thakur S (2008) On extending RuleML for modal defeasible logic. In: Bassiliades N, Governatori G, Paschke A (eds) Rule representation, interchange and reasoning on the web, vol 5321. Lecture Notes in Computer ScienceSpringer, Heidelberg, p 89–103Google Scholar
  12. Rahwan I, Zablitha F, Reed C (2007) Laying the foundations for a World Wide Argument Web. Artif Intell 171(10–15):897–921CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Shim JP, Warkentin M, Courtney JF, Power DJ, Sharda R, Carlsson C (2002) Past, present, and future of decision support technology. Decis Support Syst 33(2):111–126CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Information Systems, Curtin Business SchoolCurtin UniversityBentleyAustralia

Personalised recommendations