Moving between argumentation frameworks. / Oren, Nick; Reed, Chris; Luck, Michael.
Computational models of argument: proceedings of COMMA 2010. ed. / Pietro Baroni; Federico Cerutti; Massimiliano Giacomin; Guillermo R. Simari. Amsterdam : IOS Press, 2010. p. 379-390 (Frontiers in artificial intelligence and applications).Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceeding › Other chapter contribution
}
TY - CHAP
T1 - Moving between argumentation frameworks
A1 - Oren,Nick
A1 - Reed,Chris
A1 - Luck,Michael
AU - Oren,Nick
AU - Reed,Chris
AU - Luck,Michael
PB - IOS Press
CY - Amsterdam
PY - 2010
Y1 - 2010
N2 - Abstract argument frameworks have been used for various applications within multi-agent systems, including reasoning and negotiation. Different argument frameworks make use of different inter-argument relations and semantics to identify some subset of arguments as coherent, yet there is no easy way to map between these frameworks; most commonly, this is done manually according to human intuition. In response, in this paper, we show how a set of arguments described using Dung's or Nielsen's argument frameworks can be mapped from and to an argument framework that includes both attack and support relations. This mapping preserves the framework's semantics in the sense that an argument deemed coherent in one framework is coherent in the other under a related semantics. Interestingly, this translation is not unique, with one set of arguments in the support based framework mapping to multiple argument sets within the attack only framework. Additionally, we show how EAF can be mapped into a subset of the argument interchange format (AIF). By using this mapping, any other argument framework using this subset of AIF can be translated into a DAF while preserving its semantics. © 2010 The authors and IOS Press. All rights reserved.
AB - Abstract argument frameworks have been used for various applications within multi-agent systems, including reasoning and negotiation. Different argument frameworks make use of different inter-argument relations and semantics to identify some subset of arguments as coherent, yet there is no easy way to map between these frameworks; most commonly, this is done manually according to human intuition. In response, in this paper, we show how a set of arguments described using Dung's or Nielsen's argument frameworks can be mapped from and to an argument framework that includes both attack and support relations. This mapping preserves the framework's semantics in the sense that an argument deemed coherent in one framework is coherent in the other under a related semantics. Interestingly, this translation is not unique, with one set of arguments in the support based framework mapping to multiple argument sets within the attack only framework. Additionally, we show how EAF can be mapped into a subset of the argument interchange format (AIF). By using this mapping, any other argument framework using this subset of AIF can be translated into a DAF while preserving its semantics. © 2010 The authors and IOS Press. All rights reserved.
KW - Abstract argument frameworks
KW - Argumentation
KW - Semantics
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?partnerID=yv4JPVwI&eid=2-s2.0-78049264031&md5=e6758d47b6ebe89efbf4032b796dfa8e
U2 - 10.3233/978-1-60750-619-5-379
DO - 10.3233/978-1-60750-619-5-379
M1 - Other chapter contribution
SN - 9781607506188
BT - Computational models of argument
T2 - Computational models of argument
A2 - Simari,Guillermo R.
ED - Simari,Guillermo R.
T3 - Frontiers in artificial intelligence and applications
T3 - en_GB
SP - 379
EP - 390
ER -