Arguing over Goals for Negotiation: Adopting an Assumption-Based Argumentation Decision Support System - Efficient Decision Support Systems: Practice and Challenges from Current to Future - page 232

Theorem 1 (Mapping between semantics) . Let
DF = DL

,

P

sm ,

I

,

T

,

P

,

RV

be a decision framework and

AF = A ( DF )

, defeats be our argumentation framework for decision making. Let us consider

G ∈G

.
• If there is a s-admissible set of structured arguments S 1 concluding G 1 with

with G ⊇RV

RV ⊆ G 1 ⊆ G

such there is no s-admissible set of structured arguments concluding G 2 with

RV ⊆ G 2 ⊆ G with

S 1 )

G 2 P G 1 , then there is pabf 1 ∈ PABFS DF ( G )

such that the corresponding set of assumptions

(

is admissible within pabf 1 and there is no pabf 2 ∈ PABFS DF ( G ) ,with pabf 2 P pabf 1 ,which

contains an admissible set of assumptions deducing G 2 .
• fth es pabf 1 ∈ PABFS DF ( G ) which contains an admissible set of assumptions A 1 deducing

RV ⊆ G 1 ⊆ G such that there is no pabf 2 ∈ PABFS DF ( G ) ,with pabf 2 P pabf 1 ,which

G 1 with

RV ⊆ G 2 ⊆ G and G 2 P G 1 , then the contains an admissible set of assumptions deducing G 2 with

− 1 ( A 1 ) corresponding structured arguments concluding G 1 is in a s-admissible set and there is no

other structured arguments S 2 concluding G 2 which is in a s-admissible set.

4. Implementation
The implementation of our framework is called MARGO. We describe here its usage in
particular in the context of service-oriented agents. MARGO stands for Multiattribute
ARGumentation framework for Opinion explanation. MARGO is written in Prolog and
available in GPL (GNU General Public License) at http://margo.sourceforge.net/ .
In order to be computed by MARGO, the file, which describes the decision problem, contains:
• a set of decisions, i.e. some lists which contain the alternatives courses of actions;
• possibly a set of incompatibilities, i.e. some couples such that the first component is
incompatible with the second component;
• possibly a set of symmetric incompatibilities, i.e. some couples such that the first
component is incompatible with the second component and conversely;
• a set of decisions rules, i.e. some triples of name - head - body which are simple Prolog
representations of the decision rules in our AF;
• possibly a set of goal rules, i.e. some triples of name - head - body which are simple Prolog
representations of the goal rules in our AF;
• possibly a set of epistemic rules, i.e. some triples of name - head - body which are simple
Prolog representations of the epistemic rules in our AF;
• possibly a set of priorities, some couples of goals such that the former have priority over
the latter;
• a set of presumable belief literals;
• a reservation value, i.e. a list which contains the minimal set of goals which needs to be
reached.
We can note that the incompatibilities between the mutual exclusive alternatives are implicit in
the MARGO language. It is worth noticing that MARGO attempts to narrow the gap between
the specification of the decision framework and the corresponding code.
The main predicate admissible(+G,?AG, ?AD) succeeds when AG are the acceptable
goals extracted form G and AD are the acceptable decisions. The predicate for argument
manipulation admissibleArgument(+C, ?P, ?S) succeeds when P are the premises and