Argumentation framework Clause Samples

An argumentation framework clause establishes the rules and structure for presenting, evaluating, and resolving arguments or disputes within a given context. Typically, it outlines the procedures for submitting claims, responding to opposing views, and the criteria for assessing the strength or validity of arguments. This clause ensures that disagreements are handled systematically and fairly, promoting clarity and consistency in decision-making or conflict resolution processes.
Argumentation framework. In order for the agents to consider potential mappings and the reasons for and against accepting them, we use an argumentation framework. Our framework is based on Value- based Argument Frameworks (V AFs) [3].This work is an experimental research and 4 Although the agents’ ontologies may differ, we assume that ontologies are encoded in the same language, the standard OWL (▇▇▇▇://▇▇▇.▇▇.▇▇▇/OWL/), thus eliminating the problem of integrating different ontology languages. a prototype of the framework is under development. We start with the presentation of ▇▇▇▇ work [7], upon which the V AFs rely. Definition 1. An Argumentation Framework (AF) is a pair AF = AR, A , where AR is a set of arguments and A AR AR is the attack relationship for AF. A comprises a set of ordered pairs of distinct arguments in AR. A pair x, y is referred to as ”x attacks y”. We also say that a set of arguments S attacks an argument y if y is attacked by an argument in S. An argumentation framework can be simply represented as a directed graph whose vertices are the arguments and whose edges correspond to the elements of A. In Dung’s work, arguments are atomic and cannot be analysed further. In this paper, however, we are concerned only with arguments about mappings. We can therefore define arguments as follows: Definition 2. An argument x AF is a triple x = G, m, σ where m is a correspon- dence e, e′, n, R ; G is the grounds justifying a prima facie belief that the correspon- dence does, or does not hold; σ is one of +, depending on whether the argument is that m does or does not hold. An argument x is attacked by the assertion of its negation x, namely the counter- argument, defined as follows:
View SourceView Similar (4)
Argumentation framework. In order for the agents to consider potential mappings and the reasons for and against accepting them, we use an argumentation framework. Our framework is based on Value- based Argument Frameworks (V AFs) [3].This work is an experimental research and 4 Although the agents’ ontologies may differ, we assume that ontologies are encoded in the same language, the standard OWL (▇▇▇▇://▇▇▇.▇▇.▇▇▇/OWL/), thus eliminating the problem of integrating different ontology languages. a prototype of the framework is under development. We start with the presentation of Dung work [7], upon which the V AFs rely.
View Source
Argumentation framework. Our real-time argumentation framework defines three types of individual knowledge resources that the agents can use to manage arguments: A case-base with domain-cases, that represent pre- vious problems and their solutions. Agents can use this knowledge resource to generate their po- sitions and arguments. The position of an agent represents the solution that this agent proposes, by reusing the solution applied to solve a simi- lar problem in the past. Also, agents increase their domain knowledge at the end of each real-time argumentation dialogue by adding new cases to their domain-cases case-base. ous argumentation experiences and their final out- come. Agents use this resource to select the best position and argument to put forward in a specific situation in view of how suitable a similar posi- tion or argument was in a similar real-time argu- mentation dialogue. Also, agents store the new ar- gumentation knowledge gained in each real-time agreement process, improving the agents’ argu- mentation skills. A set of argumentation-schemes, that represents stereotyped patterns of reasoning [46]. Argumentation- schemes consists of a set of premises from which agents can draw specific conclusions. In this sense, argumentation-schemes represent general rules that hold in the domain under discussion (e.g. regarding exceptional situations that force agents to select a specific type of solution). In addition, argumentation-schemes include a set of critical questions that represent possible ways of attacking the conclusion drawn from the scheme (e.g. exceptions to the rule, other sources of infor- mation that invalidate the rule, etc.). In our proposal, arguments that agents exchange are tuples of the form:
View Source
Argumentation framework. An argumentation framework (AF) is a pair AF = (A, R) where • A is a non-empty set of arguments, and • R ⊆ A × A is an attack relation. If (x, y) ∈ E we say that the argument x attacks argument y. An argumentation framework (AF) essentially describes an argumentation setting as a directed graph. A crucial question when faced with such an argumentation setting is what is the sensible position to take with respect to the arguments which have been “presented”, or are otherwise being assessed. There may be several viable positions to take, or occasionally no sensible position. What is sensible is not a straightforward conclusion to reach either. The/a sensible position, either way, will be some set of arguments among the arguments in question. Such a subset of the arguments is called an extension. Several semantics have been proposed. A semantic always have the same signature, as defined in the following definition. ( )∈ ( )⊆ → Definition 2.20 (Extension-based Semantic). Let A be some collection of argumenta- tion frameworks over arguments ▇. ▇▇ (extension-based) semantic is a map ε : A 22A. That is, for an argumentation framework A, R A, ε A, R 2A yields a set of extensions. There are several semantics for argumentation theory. Each with properties which speak for and against it, depending on how we perceive argumentation to function, or rather how we think argumentation ought to function. Some common, and simple, candidates are listed in the following definition.
View Source

Related to Argumentation framework

  • Orientation Program The Company will allow a designated representative of the Local or Bargaining Unit up to one (1) hour per calendar month for the purpose of conducting the Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union New Members’ Orientation Program. Such meetings will be conducted during the probationary period of employees, and will be held on Company premises. Employees participating in Orientation Program meetings during their normally scheduled working hours will not suffer loss of pay at their regular rate. Orientation Program meetings will be scheduled by Management and a Management representative may attend as an observer.

  • Overview (a) The Employer is committed to maintaining a stable and skilled workforce, recognising its contribution to the operation of the Employer. As such, full time direct and ongoing employment is a guiding principle of this Agreement. (b) The Employer will take all measures to achieve employment security for the direct permanent employees of the Employer. The Parties agree upon the measures in this Clause to protect and enhance the employment security, health and safety, terms and conditions of employment and career development of the employees. (c) The employer agrees that it is highly important to ensure that work is performed effectively, efficiently and without undue pressure or bullying, and in a way that promotes OHS and EO principles and practices in the workplace and appropriate representation of employees should they so request. The employer will ensure that its employment practices are consistent with the above principles and practices.

  • Investment Analysis and Implementation In carrying out its obligations under Section 1 hereof, the Advisor shall: (a) supervise all aspects of the operations of the Funds; (b) obtain and evaluate pertinent information about significant developments and economic, statistical and financial data, domestic, foreign or otherwise, whether affecting the economy generally or the Funds, and whether concerning the individual issuers whose securities are included in the assets of the Funds or the activities in which such issuers engage, or with respect to securities which the Advisor considers desirable for inclusion in the Funds' assets; (c) determine which issuers and securities shall be represented in the Funds' investment portfolios and regularly report thereon to the Board of Trustees; (d) formulate and implement continuing programs for the purchases and sales of the securities of such issuers and regularly report thereon to the Board of Trustees; and (e) take, on behalf of the Trust and the Funds, all actions which appear to the Trust and the Funds necessary to carry into effect such purchase and sale programs and supervisory functions as aforesaid, including but not limited to the placing of orders for the purchase and sale of securities for the Funds.

  • Product Documentation You should review the policy documents carefully to ensure they accurately reflect the cover, conditions, limits and other terms that you require. Particular attention should be paid to policy conditions and warranties as failure to comply with these could invalidate your policy. Claims can arise, under certain types of insurance contract, long after the expiry of the policy. It is therefore important that you retain and keep safely all documents associated with your policy.

  • Research Use Reporting To assure adherence to NIH GDS Policy, the PI agrees to provide annual Progress Updates as part of the annual Project Renewal or Project Close-out processes, prior to the expiration of the one (1) year data access period. The PI who is seeking Renewal or Close-out of a project agree to complete the appropriate online forms and provide specific information such as how the data have been used, including publications or presentations that resulted from the use of the requested dataset(s), a summary of any plans for future research use (if the PI is seeking renewal), any violations of the terms of access described within this Agreement and the implemented remediation, and information on any downstream intellectual property generated from the data. The PI also may include general comments regarding suggestions for improving the data access process in general. Information provided in the progress updates helps NIH evaluate program activities and may be considered by the NIH GDS governance committees as part of NIH’s effort to provide ongoing stewardship of data sharing activities subject to the NIH GDS Policy.