Argumentation frameworks Clause Samples

Argumentation frameworks. In order to reach agent consensus about ontology alignments, first we have to build the argumentation frameworks and evaluate them to find which arguments are agreed and agreeble. There are four main steps in applying our argumentation approach: 1. Given a single agent, and for each candidate mapping, we construct an argumenta- tion framework by considering the repertoire of argument schemes available to the agent, and constructing a set of arguments by instantiating these schemes with re- spect to the interests of the agent. Each argument either supports or rejects the con- clusion that the mapping is valid. Internally, an argument is represented by a simple identifier (letter A,B,C, etc.), the type of value which it promoted, and optionally, the agent(s) introducing the argument. Having established the set of arguments, we then determine the attacks between them by considering their mappings and signs, and the other factors discussed above. The formulation of suitable attacks is a key part of representing the different point of views of agents. Arguments may have different strength, which depends on the values they promote. Therefore, an attack can fail, since the attacked argument may be stronger than its attacker.
View Source
Argumentation frameworks. ‌ An argument is defined as a set of grounds in support of a conclusion. Arguments can take the form “conclusion because grounds”, where the grounds of the argument con- stitute the evidence in support of the conclusion. The conclusion may be derived from the grounds using deductive reasoning, as in the syllogistic example “▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ is mortal because ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ is a man and all men are mortal”. Arguments can also rely on inductive reasoning; for example consider the argument “all ravens are black because all observed ravens have been black”. In fact, an argument can be built upon any type of reason- ing, including abductive, analogistic, and even fallacious reasoning. This is a desirable property as it allows formal reasoning to be represented alongside more common-sense reasoning. However, for this reason, a key aspect of arguments is their defeasibility, meaning that an argument can be invalidated if another argument is in conflict with it. We should drive cycle because because we will we will get there quickly. get there safely. Figure 2.1: Instantiated examples of an undercut and a refutation. An argument conflict is referred to as an attack relation. We can read an attack from argument a to argument b as “argument a is a reason against argument b”. It entails that it would be rationally incoherent to find both arguments acceptable at the same time. Note that if argument a attacks argument b, it does not necessarily imply that b attacks a. We consider two types of attack: the refutation and the undercut. If argument a undercuts argument b, then either the conclusion of argument a is not rationally coherent with one of the grounds of argument b, or the conclusion of argument a is not rationally coherent with the means by which the conclusion of argument b has been derived from its grounds. If argument a refutes argument b, then the conclusion of argument a is not rationally coherent with the conclusion of argument b. Examples of the undercut and refutation are shown in Figure 2.1. Since ▇▇▇▇’s seminal work [33], the dominant approach to argumentation-based reasoning is to represent arguments as abstract entities in an argumentation framework (AF). Commonly represented topologically as directed graphs, AFs are comprised of a set of arguments and the attacks between them. See Figure 2.2 for an instantiated argu- mentation framework represented as a directed graph, and Figure 2.3 for an abstracted version of the same framework. Definition 1. An argumentation...
View Source

Related to Argumentation frameworks

  • Supporting Documentation Upon request, the HSP will provide the LHIN with proof of the matters referred to in this Article.

  • Background and Security Investigations 7.5.1 Each of Contractor’s staff performing services under this Contract, who is in a designated sensitive position, as determined by County in County's sole discretion, shall undergo and pass a background investigation to the satisfaction of County as a condition of beginning and continuing to perform services under this Contract. Such background investigation must be obtained through fingerprints submitted to the California Department of Justice to include State, local, and federal-level review, which may include, but shall not be limited to, criminal conviction information. The fees associated with the background investigation shall be at the expense of the Contractor, regardless of whether the member of Contractor’s staff passes or fails the background investigation. If a member of Contractor’s staff does not pass the background investigation, County may request that the member of Contractor’s staff be removed immediately from performing services under the Contract. Contractor shall comply with County’s request at any time during the term of the Contract. County will not provide to Contractor or to Contractor’s staff any information obtained through the County’s background investigation. 7.5.2 County, in its sole discretion, may immediately deny or terminate facility access to any member of Contractor’s staff that does not pass such investigation to the satisfaction of the County or whose background or conduct is incompatible with County facility access. 7.5.3 Disqualification of any member of Contractor’s staff pursuant to this Paragraph 7.5 shall not relieve Contractor of its obligation to complete all work in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Contract.

  • Licensed Documentation If commercially available, Licensee shall have the option to require the Contractor to deliver, at Contractor’s expense: (i) one (1) hard copy and one (1) master electronic copy of the Documentation in a mutually agreeable format; (ii) based on hard copy instructions for access by downloading from the Internet

  • Introduction and Background The purpose of this Schedule 2 (Contract Services and Contract Supplies) is to set out the characteristics of the Contract Services and/or Contract Supplies (as the case may be) and Funding that the Provider will be required to make available to all Contracting Authorities in relation to Lot 1 and/or Lot 2 (as the case may be) and to provide a description of what the Contract Services and/or Contract Supplies (as the case may be) and Funding will entail.

  • Training Materials Training Materials will be provided for each student. Training Materials may be used only for either (i) the individual student’s reference during Boeing provided training and for review thereafter or (ii) Customer’s provision of training to individuals directly employed by the Customer.