Argumentation Theoretic Foundations for Abstract Dependence Networks (bibtex)
by P. Caire, L. van der Torre, S. Villata
Abstract:
In this paper we show how to argue about agreements based on de- pendence. First, we introduce a formal theory of arguing about agreements by instantiating Dung\text's abstract theory of argumentation with proposals for agree- ments represented as dependence networks. Second, we show that acceptable agreements are exchange based\text---satisfying the so-called do-ut-des principle\text--- and not redundant. Third, to further decrease the number of proposals, we define a notion of minimal proposals. Roughly, all proposals can be split into a number of minimal sub-proposals such that if the proposal is acceptable, then its minimal sub-proposals are acceptable too. We show that minimal proposals satisfy the indecomposable do-ut-des property, i.e., they cannot be split into two nonempty sub-proposals with at most one shared agent.
Reference:
Argumentation Theoretic Foundations for Abstract Dependence Networks (P. Caire, L. van der Torre, S. Villata), In , 2013.
Bibtex Entry:
@Article{10993/3835,
  Title                    = {Argumentation Theoretic Foundations for Abstract Dependence Networks},
  Author                   = {Caire, P. and van der Torre, L. and Villata, S.},
  Year                     = {2013},

  Abstract                 = {In this paper we show how to argue about agreements based on de- pendence. First, we introduce a formal theory of arguing about agreements by instantiating Dung\text{'}s abstract theory of argumentation with proposals for agree- ments represented as dependence networks. Second, we show that acceptable agreements are exchange based\text{---}satisfying the so-called do-ut-des principle\text{---} and not redundant. Third, to further decrease the number of proposals, we define a notion of minimal proposals. Roughly, all proposals can be split into a number of minimal sub-proposals such that if the proposal is acceptable, then its minimal sub-proposals are acceptable too. We show that minimal proposals satisfy the indecomposable do-ut-des property, i.e., they cannot be split into two nonempty sub-proposals with at most one shared agent.},
  Timestamp                = {2015.01.26}
}
Powered by bibtexbrowser