Information Technology Reference
In-Depth Information
C
fast
r
31
(
c
)
s
(
c
)
reply
(
accept
)
Price
(
c
,
low
)
f
33
s
(
c
)
reply
(
accept
)
Fig. 2. The argument
¯
Cconcluding
fast
Similarly, we say that a set S of structured arguments defeats a structured argument
¯
Aif A is defeated
by one argument in S.
Let us consider our example.
Example 6
(Defeat relation)
.
As previously mentionned,
¯
Cand D
2
attack each other and they
conclude the same goal
fast
. We can deduce that
¯
Cand D
2
defeat each other.
3.5 Argumentation framework
We are now in the position of summarizing what is our argumentation framework for decision
making. In doing this, we also inherit the semantics defined by Dung to analyse when a
decision can be considered as acceptable.
As we have seen, in our argumentation-based approach for decision making, arguments
motivate decisions and they can be defeated by other arguments. More formally, our
argumentation framework (AF for short) is defined as follows.
=
DL
P
I
T
P
RV
Definition 14
(AF)
.
be a decision framework.
The
argumentation framework for decision making
built upon
DF
is a pair
AF
Let
DF
,
sm
,
,
,
,
=
A
(
DF
)
is the finite set of structured arguments built upon
DF
as defined
in Definition 8, and
defeats
⊆A
(
DF
)
×A
(
DF
)
,
defeats
where
A
(
DF
)
is the binary relation over
A
(
DF
)
as defined in
Definition 13.
We adapt Dung's extension-based semantics in order to analyse whenever a set of structured
arguments can be considered as subjectively justified with respect to the preferences.
Search WWH ::
Custom Search