Advertisement

A Food Packaging Use Case for Argumentation

  • Nouredine Tamani
  • Patricio Mosse
  • Madalina Croitoru
  • Patrice Buche
  • Valérie Guillard
Conference paper
Part of the Communications in Computer and Information Science book series (CCIS, volume 478)

Abstract

Within the framework of the European project EcoBioCap (ECOefficient BIOdegradable Composite Advanced Packaging), aiming at conceiving the next generation of food packagings, we introduce an argumentation-based tool for management of conflicting viewpoints between preferences expressed by the involved parties (food and packaging industries, health and waste management authorities, consumers, etc.). In this paper we recall briefly the principles underlying the reasoning process, and we detail the main functionalities and the architecture of the argumentation tool covering the overall reasoning steps starting from formal representation of text arguments and ending by extraction of justified preferences. Finally, we detail its operational functioning through a real life case study to determine the justifiable choices between recyclable, compostable and biodegradable packaging materials based on stakeholders’ arguments.

Keywords

Multiagent System Food Packaging Argumentation Framework Logical Argument Packaging Industry 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Amgoud, L., Bodenstaff, L., Caminada, M., McBurney, P., Parsons, S., Prakken, H., Veenen, J., Vreeswijk, G.: Final review and report on formal argumentation system.deliverable d2.6 aspic. Technical report (2006)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Destercke, S., Buche, P., Guillard, V.: A flexible bipolar querying approach with imprecise data and guaranteed results. Fuzzy Sets and Systems 169, 51–64 (2011)CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Dung, P.M.: On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-persons games. Artificial Intelligence 77(2), 321–357 (1995)CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Parsons, S., Sklar, E., Salvit, J., Wall, H., Li, Z.: Argtrust: decision making with information from sources of varying trustworthiness. In: Proceedings of the 2013 International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems, pp. 1395–1396. International Foundation for Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (2013)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Prakken, H.: An abstract framework for argumentation with structured arguments. Technical report, Department of Information and Computing Sciences. Utrecht University (2009)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Reed, C., Rowe, G.: Araucaria: Software for argument analysis, diagramming and representation. International Journal on Artificial Intelligence Tools 13(04), 961–979 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Schneider, D.C., Voigt, C., Betz, G.: Argunet- a software tool for collaborative argumentation analysis and research. In: 7th Workshop on Computational Models of Natural Argument (CMNA VII) (2007)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Schneider, J., Groza, T., Passant, A.: A review of argumentation for the social semantic web. Semantic Web 4(2), 159–218 (2013)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Tamani, N., Croitoru, M.: Fuzzy argumentation system for decision support. In: Laurent, A., Strauss, O., Bouchon-Meunier, B., Yager, R.R. (eds.) IPMU 2014, Part I. CCIS, vol. 442, pp. 77–86. Springer, Heidelberg (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Tamani, N., Croitoru, M.: A quantitative preference-based structured argumentation system for decision support. In: Fuzz-IEEE, pp. 1408–1415 (2014)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Tamani, N., Croitoru, M., Buche, P.: A viewpoint approach to structured argumentation. In: Bramer, M., Petridis, M. (eds.) The Thirty-third SGAI International Conference on Innovative Techniques and Applications of Artificial Intelligence, pp. 265–271 (2013)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Tamani, N., Croitoru, M., Buche, P.: Conflicting viewpoint relational database querying: an argumentation approach. In: Scerri, L., Huhns, B. (eds.) Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (AAMAS 2014), pp. 1553–1554 (2014)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Wu, Y.: Between argument and conclusion. Argument-based approaches to discussion. Inference and Uncertainty. PhD thesis, Université du Luxembourg (2012)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nouredine Tamani
    • 1
    • 4
  • Patricio Mosse
    • 2
  • Madalina Croitoru
    • 1
    • 3
    • 4
  • Patrice Buche
    • 1
    • 2
    • 4
  • Valérie Guillard
    • 2
    • 3
  1. 1.INRIAFrance
  2. 2.IATE, INRAFrance
  3. 3.University Montpellier 2France
  4. 4.LIRMMFrance

Personalised recommendations