Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Connecting Databases with Argumentation

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Web Knowledge Management and Decision Support (INAP 2001)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNAI,volume 2543))

Included in the following conference series:

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 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. 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. A. Bouguettaya, B. Benatallah, and A. Elmagarmid. Interconnecting Heterogeneous Information Systems. Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1998.

    Google Scholar 

  4. 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.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  5. 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.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  6. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. T. Gaasterland and J. Lobo. Qualified answers that reflect user needs and preferences. In Proceedings of the 20th VLDB Conference, 1994.

    Google Scholar 

  8. M. Kifer and V.S. Subrahmanian. Theory of generalized annotated logic programming and its applications. Journal of Logic Programming, 12:335–368, 1992.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  9. R. Kowalski and F. Toni. Abstract argumentation. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 4:275–296, 1996.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. J. Lloyd. Foundations of Logic Programming. Springer-Verlag, second edition edition, 1987.

    Google Scholar 

  11. R.P. Loui. Defeat among arguments: a system of defeasible inference. Computational Intelligence, 2:100–106, 1987.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. J.L. Pollock. Defeasible reasoning. Cognitive Science, 11:481–518, 1987.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Shekhar Pradhan. Semantics of Normal Logic Programs and Contested Information. In Proc. 11th IEEE Symposium on Logic in Computer Science, 1996.

    Google Scholar 

  14. 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. 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. 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. Henry Praaken and Giovanni Sartor. A dialectical model of assessing conflicting arguments in legal reasoning. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 4:331–368, 1996.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Henry Praaken and Giovanni Sartor. Argument-based extended logic programming with defeasible priorities. Journal of Applied Non-classical Logics, 7:25–75, 1997.

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  19. Henry Praaken and Giovanni Sartor. Modelling reasoning with precedents in a formal dialogue game. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 6:231–287, 1998.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Central Missouri State University, USA

    Shekhar Pradhan

Authors
  1. Shekhar Pradhan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. IF Computer Japan, 5-28-2 Sendagi, Bunkyo-ku, 113-0022, Tokyo, Japan

    Oskar Bartenstein

  2. Fraunhofer FIRST, Kekulé 7, 12489, Berlin, Germany

    Ulrich Geske

  3. think-cell Software GmbH, Invalidenstraße 34, 10115, Berlin, Germany

    Markus Hannebauer

  4. Waseda University, 2-7 Hibikino, Wakamatsu-ku, Kitakyushu, Fukuoka, Japan

    Osamu Yoshie

Rights and permissions

Reprints 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

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation