3rd Joint WG Workshop - Session 3: Semantics, Argumentation and Negotiation

June 4, 2010

14:30 - 16:30

Heraklion, Crete - Greece

Chair: Francesca Toni

crete-wg-session3

Speakers:

Jérôme Euzenat (INRIA):  ”Distributed semantics for distributed argumentation”

Slides

Abstract: Argumentation is usually a group process in which parties try to influence others. However, the typical argumentation frameworks that have been developed in artificial intelligence have focused on selecting arguments within individual argumentation frameworks and use the individually selected arguments to build a common consensus. In this talk we propose to deal with distributed argumentation based on the semantics we gave to networks of ontologies. Here, extensions of the distributed argumentation system are obtained from the product of extensions of the local argumentation framework. Adding constraints to this product may be used to further precise such a general semantics with regard to cooperation strategies or the logical implication of the argumentation results.

Carlos Ivan Chesnevar (Univ. Nacional del Sur): “Reasoning with inconsistent ontology: an argument-based approach using DeLP”

Slides

Abstract: Standard approaches to reasoning with Description Logics (DL) ontologies require them to be consistent. However, as ontologies are complex entities and sometimes built upon other imported ontologies, inconsistencies can arise. In this paper, we present a framework for reasoning with inconsistent DL ontologies. Our proposal involves expressing DL ontologies as Defeasible Logic Programs (DeLP). Given a query posed w.r.t. an inconsistent ontology, a dialectical analysis will be performed on a DeLP program obtained from such ontology where all arguments in favor and against the final answer of the query will be taken into account.

References:

1) “Reasoning with Inconsistent Ontologies through Argumentation” (S.Gómez, C.Chesñevar, G. Simari). In Applied Artificial Intelligence, 24: 1, 102 — 148, 2010. Taylor&Francis, UK.

2) “An Argumentative Approach to Reasoning with Inconsistent Ontologies”. (S.Gómez, C.Chesñevar, G.Simari). In Proceedings of Knowledge Representation Ontology Workshop (KROW 2008), Sydney, Australia. Conferences in Research and Practice in Information Technology, Vol. 90, Pag. 11-20. Thomas Meyer and Mehmet A. Orgun, Eds.

Elise Bonson (Univ. Paris Descartes): “A Protocol for Multiparty Argumentation among Focused Agents”     (work with Nicolas Maudet)

Slides

Abstract: When dealing with the exchange of arguments to arbitrate conflicting  viewpoints put forward by different agents, it is certainly desirable  that the outcome of the dialogue is not entirely predetermined from the  initial situation. Agents should have a chance to influence the outcome  of the game: they may strategize. This talk adresses a protocol of multiparty argumentation, in which  several (more than two) agents focusing on a (unique) issue, exchange  arguments in order to commonly decide the status of this argument. We  study which outcomes can (or will be) reached with these dialogues.

Jeff Z. Pan (Univ.  of Aberdeen): “Ontology Reasoning, Justification and Argumentation”

Sllides

Abstract: In this talk, I will briefly introduce ontology and show how ontology reasoning services, in particular justification service, can be used to support argumentation.

Robert Meersman (VUB STARLab): “Agreement Methodology and Technology for Social Semantics” (with contributions by Christophe Debruyne)

Slides

SetPageWidth