I completed last week a general argument evaluation procedure (written in Prolog) that given a claim in the context of an Assumption-Based Argumentation (ABA) Framework (consisting of a language, inference rules, assumptions and contraries) checks whether the claim is acceptable according to the admissibility semantics and, if so, returns the defence set (which includes facts as well as assumptions).
I will now modify the implementations of the eumas- and aamas- negotiation policies to use (call) this procedure rather than CaSAPI.
The reason for implementing another argument evaluation procedure when CaSAPI already exists is that CaSAPI contains many features which I do not need and does not contain some features which I do need (e.g. returning a defence set that includes facts, as required in the kind of inter-agent communication setting I consider).
How can I learn more about this argument evaluation procedure? I have dveeloped such a procedure for arguments of the kind used in planning and design -- neglected by mogic because it is as formally inconclusive as induction -- and tried to go beyond the individual argument: in planning, design, policy-making the decisison never rests of a single argument but on the 'weighing of the pros and cons'. Not bein a programmer, I need help developing software for this approach, but first I'm genuinely interested in what you are doing.
Post a Comment