Paper is about introducing argumentation to the "alternating offers (negotiation) protocol" and separating (making a distinction) between "practical" and "epistemic" arguments. Worth nothing that the work is for the 2-agent setting and arguments are treated as abstract entities.
A few questions to ask of the author(s):
- Are (would) the conflict relations (Re and Rp) (be) shared by both agents? (see page 442)
- Are (would) the preference relations (>=p and >=e) (be) shared by both agents? (see page 442)
- Why is the assumption on page 443 that all practical arguments are 'useful' for some offer necessary?
- The 'reject' case on page 445 (and explained on page 447): Why is it so? What does it mean for arguments and offers to be removed from the agent's theory?
- Are offers ever added to the agents known offers (i.e. is it dynamic or static)?
No comments:
Post a Comment