Common use of Argumentation framework Clause in Contracts

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 (xxxx://xxx.x0.xxx/OWL/), thus eliminating the problem of integrating different ontology languages. a prototype of the framework is under development. We start with the presentation of Xxxx 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:

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 AFsAF s) [3].This work is an experimental research and 4 a prototype of the framework is under development. We start with the presentation of Xxxx work [7], upon which the V AF s rely. 1 Although the agents’ ontologies may differ, we assume that ontologies are encoded in the same language, the standard OWL (xxxx://xxx.x0.xxx/OWL/), thus eliminating the problem of integrating different ontology languages. a prototype of the framework is under development. We start with the presentation of Xxxx work [7], upon which the V AFs rely. Definition 1. An Argumentation Framework (AFAF ) is a pair AF = AR, A , where AR is a set of arguments and A AR AR is the attack relationship for AFAF . 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: