scispace - formally typeset
Search or ask a question
Book ChapterDOI

A Food Packaging Use Case for Argumentation

27 Nov 2014-Iss: 478, pp 344-358
TL;DR: This paper details the main functionalities and the architecture of the argumentation tool and its operational functioning through a real life case study to determine the justifiable choices between recyclable, compostable and biodegradable packaging materials based on stakeholders’ arguments.
Abstract: Within the framework of the European project EcoBioCap (ECOefficient BIOdegradable Composite Advanced Packaging), aiming at conceiving the next generation of food packagings, we introduce an argumentation-based tool for management of conflicting viewpoints between preferences expressed by the involved parties (food and packaging industries, health and waste management authorities, consumers, etc.). In this paper we recall briefly the principles underlying the reasoning process, and we detail the main functionalities and the architecture of the argumentation tool covering the overall reasoning steps starting from formal representation of text arguments and ending by extraction of justified preferences. Finally, we detail its operational functioning through a real life case study to determine the justifiable choices between recyclable, compostable and biodegradable packaging materials based on stakeholders’ arguments.

Summary (2 min read)

1 Introduction

  • Within the framework of the European project EcoBioCap (ECOefficient BIOdegradable Composite Advanced Packaging), the authors have designed a Decision Support System (called DSS) whose objective is to select packaging materials according to possibly conflicting requirements expressed by the involved parties (food and packaging industries, health authorities, consumers, waste management authority, etc.).
  • Thus, their approach consists of two steps: (i) aggregating possibly conflicting preferences expressed by the involved stakeholders (ii) querying a database of packagings with the resulting aggregated preferences obtained at point (i).
  • There are few argumentation software implementing an argumentation process from argument expression to extensions computation, while providing users with several Graphical User Interfaces to visualize the entire process.
  • Section 2 summarizes the main functionalities of the tool.

2 User Requirements

  • The authors detail hereinafter the main functions of the argumentation system.
  • The following text argument in favor of recyclable material “Recyclable packagings are advised since they protect the environment according to the life cycle analysis” can be modeled by the following concepts and logical rules: RecyclablePack: a concrete concept corresponding to recyclable packag- ing materials.
  • So, the authors can load already formatted concepts and rules directly in the system or obtain a local copy of the current project.
  • The system should automatically compute the logical arguments obtained from the set of concepts and rules, also known as – Process arguments.
  • Ev- ery stakeholder has an account and a password.

3 Architecture of the argumentation system

  • This module implements a user-friendly interface for an interactive translation of text arguments into a formal representation made of concepts and rules (claims and hypothesis), also known as – Argument formalization module.
  • This module receives as inputs the list of concepts and rules cor- responding to text arguments, also known as – Logical arguments.
  • According to the negation operator, it detects all the conflicts among arguments and models them as attacks with respect to the definition of attacks introduced in [11, 12].
  • The computation of extensions is made under one semantics (preferred, stable, grounded, eager, semi-stable, semistable, ideal) as defined in [3].
  • The selected extension is then used to extract the preferences underlying the contained concepts.

4 Use Case

  • This section details a use case employed throughout the project and in this paper for exemplification reasons.
  • The authors consider the following arguments expressed by the stakeholders obtained by interviews and surveys.
  • Waste management authority aims at collecting at least 75% of recyclable packag- ing, 3.
  • Consumers are unwilling to sort packaging cause of its extra taxe, 4. Life Cycle Analysis (LCA) results are not in favor of biodegradable and com- postable materials, 5. Consumers are in favor of biodegradable material because they help to protect the environment, 6. Biodegradable materials could encourage people to throw their packaging in nature, causing visual pollution, 7.
  • Such restriction is explained by (i) the huge number of arguments generated during the software testing phase, and (ii) the need for associating the packaging attributes with the argumentation process in its early stages.

5 Implementation of the approach

  • The implementation of the approach has been done in the context of the EcoBioCap DSS.
  • Zone 1 corresponds to the task bar implementing general functions applied on projects (create, load, close, refresh, export, etc.).
  • Zone 3 displays the extracted concepts and rules from the text arguments, they are also listed by stakeholders.
  • Figure 8 illustrates the obtained ontology in the case of the viewpoint end of life in which stakeholders argued about biodegradability, recyclability and compostability.
  • The user can actually select the extensions, previously translated into couples attribute = value, from the graphical user interface of the flexible multi-criteria querying system as displayed in Figure 12.

6 Conclusion

  • The authors applied in this paper an argumentation approach on a real use case from the industry, based on a combination of an ASPIC argumentation system with a DLR-Lite specifications allowing stakeholders to express their preferences and providing the system with stable concepts and subsumptions of a domain.
  • Each viewpoint delivers extensions supporting or opposing certain choices according to one packaging aspect, which are then used in the querying process.
  • The approach is finally implemented as freely accessible web application and a demonstration of the tool can also be provided.
  • Some feedback obtained from test users point out the difficulties to consider a rule as either strict or defeasible and expressed the need to be able to specify a sort of importance encompassing the notions of strictness and defeasibility.
  • So, one work in progress is to extend the proposed approach to fuzziness to make it possible to deal with vague and uncertain concepts and rules [10, 9].

Did you find this useful? Give us your feedback

Content maybe subject to copyright    Report

HAL Id: lirmm-01089612
https://hal-lirmm.ccsd.cnrs.fr/lirmm-01089612
Submitted on 2 Dec 2014
HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entic research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.
L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diusion de documents
scientiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.
A Food Packaging Use Case for Argumentation
Nouredine Tamani, Patricio Mosse, Madalina Croitoru, Patrice Buche, Valérie
Guillard
To cite this version:
Nouredine Tamani, Patricio Mosse, Madalina Croitoru, Patrice Buche, Valérie Guillard. A Food Pack-
aging Use Case for Argumentation. MTSR: Metadata and Semantics Research, Karlsruhe University
of Applied Sciences. DEU., Nov 2014, Karlsruhe, Germany. pp.344-358, �10.1007/978-3-319-13674-
5_31�. �lirmm-01089612�

A Food Packaging Use Case for Argumentation
Nouredine Tamani
1,4
, Patricio Mosse
2
, Madalina Croitoru
1,3,4
, Patrice Buche
1,2,4
,
Val
´
erie Guillard
2,3
1
INRIA, France;
2
IATE, INRA, France;
3
University Montpellier 2, France
4
LIRMM, France;
Abstract. Within the framework of the European project EcoBioCap (ECOeffi-
cient BIOdegradable Composite Advanced Packaging), aiming at conceiving the
next generation of food packagings, we introduce an argumentation-based tool
for management of conflicting viewpoints between preferences expressed by the
involved parties (food and packaging industries, health and waste management
authorities, consumers, etc.). In this paper we recall briefly the principles under-
lying the reasoning process, and we detail the main functionalities and the ar-
chitecture of the argumentation tool covering the overall reasoning steps starting
from formal representation of text arguments and ending by extraction of justified
preferences. Finally, we detail its operational functioning through a real life case
study to determine the justifiable choices between recyclable, compostable and
biodegradable packaging materials based on stakeholders’ arguments.
1 Introduction
Within the framework of the European project EcoBioCap (ECOefficient BIOdegrad-
able Composite Advanced Packaging), we have designed a Decision Support System
(called DSS) whose objective is to select packaging materials according to possibly con-
flicting requirements expressed by the involved parties (food and packaging industries,
health authorities, consumers, waste management authority, etc.). The requirements and
user preferences are modeled by several ontological rules provided by the stakeholders
expressing their viewpoints and expertise.
The DSS software is made of two parts, as depicted in Figure 1:
1. a multi-criteria flexible querying process [2] which takes as inputs desired prefer-
ences associated with packaging characteristics (permeability, shape, dimensions,
desired shelf life, ...) and retrieves from a packaging database a ranked list of the
most relevant packagings.
2. an argumentation process which aims at aggregating several stakeholders (con-
sumers, researchers, food industry, packaging industry, waste management policy,
etc.) requirements expressed as simple textual arguments, to enrich the querying
process by stakeholders’ justified preferences. Each argument supports/opposes a
choice justified by the fact that it either meets or not a requirement according to
packaging aspects (biodegradability, recyclability, transparency, ...).

Stakeholders,,
Requirements,about,Fresh,product,
!"#$%#&'(&)*+,-+./01)23+45)4'5+1)-#661).+-7+/#.8/+1)+.$9:)
!
Preferences,within,arguments,
List,of,the,most,
satisfactory,
packaging,material,
Packaging,
material,DB,
Justified,
preferences,
Arg1,
Arg2,
Arg3,
Logical&based+argumentation+system+
Fig. 1. Global insight of the DSS.
Thus, our approach consists of two steps: (i) aggregating possibly conflicting pref-
erences expressed by the involved stakeholders (ii) querying a database of packagings
with the resulting aggregated preferences obtained at point (i). Indeed, packagings have
to be selected according to several aspects or criteria (permeance, interaction with the
packed food, end of life, etc.), highlighted by the expressed stakeholders’ arguments.
In this paper we detail the implementation of the argumentation system. This mod-
ule has as inputs stakeholders’ arguments supporting or opposing a packaging choice
which could be seen as preferences combined with their justifications, and returns con-
sensual preferences which may be candidates to enrich the bipolar querying system.
From the argumentation-based software standpoint, based on the recent survey of [8]
and the web site http://www.phil.cmu.edu/projects/argument
mapping/, argumentation
tools could be divided into the two following categories:
Software for argument expression and modeling. These software such as Araucaria
[6], Argunet [7] and DebateGraph (www.debategraph.org) allow the expression of
arguments in a text format and manually formalizing them as logical implications
made of hypothesis and conclusions. The user can after that save the arguments as
an XML file.

Software for extension computation (an extension is defined as a conflict-free sub-
set of arguments defending themselves against attacks computed under a consid-
ered semantics [3]) over an argumentation graph given as input, like OVA-GEN
and ArguLab.
Despite the plethora of the software available in the field of argumentation, there are
few argumentation software implementing an argumentation process from argument ex-
pression to extensions computation, while providing users with several Graphical User
Interfaces to visualize the entire process. Unlike ArgTrust [4] in which the authors con-
sidered the uncertainty underlying the sources of the knowledge used in the argumenta-
tion framework for decision making, we introduce in this paper a real world application
based on argumentation reasoning and combining a querying process, which exploits
the result of the argumentation process as justified preferences expressing consensual
solutions that meet the stakeholders needs and requirements.
Section 2 summarizes the main functionalities of the tool. Section 3 details the ar-
chitecture of the argumentation tool. Section 4 introduces a real use case for packaging
selection. Section 5 describes the implementation of the approach and Section 6 con-
cludes the paper and sums up some future work.
2 User Requirements
We detail hereinafter the main functions of the argumentation system. After discus-
sions and interviews with the project partners, we have identified some requirements
summarized in the following functionalities:
Formalize text arguments: the argumentation system should provide users with a
user-friendly interface allowing them to express their arguments as text and then
formalizing them as concepts and rules. Here, a concept is either a concrete concept
defined over some attributes of the packaging material database for which values
(numerical, intervals or boolean) can also be specified, or an abstract concept which
is not related to any attribute in the database and only used in the reasoning process,
as illustrated in Example 1.
Example 1. The following text argument in favor of recyclable material “Recy-
clable packagings are advised since they protect the environment according to the
life cycle analysis” can be modeled by the following concepts and logical rules:
RecyclablePack: a concrete concept corresponding to recyclable packag-
ing materials. It is defined over the boolean attribute Recyclable from the pack-
aging materials database with the value true,
ProtectEnvPack: an abstract concept corresponding to packaging materi-
als which protect the environment,
RecyclableP ack P rotectEnvP ack is a logical rule (implication) express-
ing the fact that any recyclable packaging is a packaging which protects the
environment,
P rotectEnvP ack AcceptedP ack is a logical rule expressing the fact that
the decision of acceptance is attached to each packaging protecting the envi-
ronment.

The system is also equipped with a function of import/export formalized arguments
from/into an XML format. So, we can load already formatted concepts and rules
directly in the system or obtain a local copy of the current project.
Process arguments: the system should automatically compute the logical arguments
obtained from the set of concepts and rules.
Example 2 (example of a logical argument). The text argument of Example 1 is
automatically translated into a logical argument made of the following three steps
of reasoning:
Choice C
1
= RecyclableP ack,
By the rule RecyclableP ack P rotectEnvP ack we get the conclusion:
C
1
is P rotectEnvP ack,
By the rule P rotectEnvP ack AcceptedP ack we get the final conclu-
sion: C
1
is AcceptedP ack.
The arguments can be gathered into pros and cons with regard to some packaging
alternative characteristics. Once logical arguments are built, the system computes
all conflicts or attacks among them and draws the corresponding argument graph.
Example 3 (example of conflict). The following argument ”recyclable packagings
are not advised since they need to provide collect and treatment facilities, which
could be very expensive” is in conflict with the argument of Example 1.
Compute extensions: an extension is a subset of non-conflicting arguments, which
defined themselves against attacks, defined according to one semantics (admissi-
ble, preferred, grounded, stable, etc. see [3] for more details about semantics). The
current version of the system implements different kinds of semantics. The user can
compute one particular semantics or all the implemented semantics.
Enrich the bipolar querying: based on the obtained extensions, the system extracts
the criteria leading to either the rejection or the acceptance of some packaging
types. These criteria and eventually associated values become predicates (condi-
tions) which can be used latter as contraints or wishes to enrich the bipolar query
which can be processed by the flexible querying system.
In addition to the above functions, the argumentation system must deal with inter-
action concerns such as:
multi-users: the system must allow a real-time discussion among stakeholders. Ev-
ery stakeholder has an account and a password. After logged in the system, a stake-
holder can browse the current project, open one of them and join the discussion by
adding or updating the expressed arguments.
persistence: in the sense that the system saves in a database the ongoing or old
projects (concept and rules) and already expressed concepts and rules and makes
them available and accessible to the stakeholders to define quickly their own argu-
ments.
informative: the user can access to a log describing further details about the current
state of the system including current users, complete description of logical argu-
ments and conflicts.

Citations
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: Among potential solutions, production of microbial biodegradable polymers from agro-food waste residues seems a promising route to create an innovative, more resilient, and productive waste-based food packaging economy by decoupling the food packaging industry from fossil feed stocks and permitting nutrients to return to the soil.
Abstract: Packaging is an essential element of response to address key challenges of sustainable food consumption on the international scene, which is clearly about minimizing the environmental footprint of packed food. An innovative sustainable packaging aims to address food waste and loss reduction by preserving food quality, as well as food safety issues by preventing food-borne diseases and food chemical contamination. Moreover, it must address the long-term crucial issue of environmentally persistent plastic waste accumulation as well as the saving of oil and food material resources. This paper reviews the major challenges that food packaging must tackle in the near future in order to enter the virtuous loop of circular bio-economy. Some solutions are proposed to address pressing international stakes in terms of food and plastic waste reduction and end-of-life issues of persistent materials. Among potential solutions, production of microbial biodegradable polymers from agro-food waste residues seems a promising route to create an innovative, more resilient, and productive waste-based food packaging economy by decoupling the food packaging industry from fossil feed stocks and permitting nutrients to return to the soil. To respond to the lack of tools and approach to properly design and adapt food packaging to food needs, mathematical simulation, based on modeling of mass transfer and reactions into food/packaging systems are promising tools. The next generation of such modeling and tools should help the food packaging sector to validate usage benefit of new packaging solutions and chose, in a fair and transparent way, the best packaging solution to contribute to the overall decrease of food losses and persistent plastic accumulation.

228 citations

Book ChapterDOI
22 Nov 2016
TL;DR: The implementation of an complementary approach which permits to filter or rank extensions according to the expression of preferences is presented.
Abstract: Argumentation methods and associated tools permit to analyze arguments against or in favor of a set of alternatives under discussion. The outputs of the argument methods are sets of conflict-free arguments collectively defending each other, called extensions. In case of multiple extensions, it is often difficult to select one out of many alternatives. We present in this paper the implementation of an complementary approach which permits to filter or rank extensions according to the expression of preferences. Methods and tools are illustrated on a real use case in food packagings. The aim is to help the industry choose among different end-of-life possibilities by linking together consumer behavior insights, socioeconomic developments and technical properties of packagings. The tool has been used on a real use-case concerning end-of-life possibilities for packag-ings.

12 citations

Proceedings ArticleDOI
09 Jul 2018
TL;DR: DAGGER is introduced: a generator for logic based argumentation frameworks instantiated from inconsistent knowledge bases expressed using Datalog+-.
Abstract: We introduce DAGGER: a generator for logic based argumentation frameworks instantiated from inconsistent knowledge bases expressed using Datalog+-. The tool allows to import a knowledge base in DLGP format and the generation and visualisation of the corresponding argumentation graph. Furthermore, the argumentation framework can also be exported in the Aspartix format.

8 citations


Additional excerpts

  • ...a particular domain ([4], [18], [19], etc....

    [...]

Book ChapterDOI
20 Jun 2016
TL;DR: This paper evaluates and compares partitioning semantics on a real qualitative sample issued from the catalogue of French university libraries (SUDOC), a bibliographical knowledge base maintained by the University Bibliographic Agency (ABES).
Abstract: In the aim of evaluating and improving link quality in bibliographical knowledge bases, we develop a decision support system based on partitioning semantics. The novelty of our approach consists in using symbolic values criteria for partitioning and suitable partitioning semantics. In this paper we evaluate and compare the above mentioned semantics on a real qualitative sample. This sample is issued from the catalogue of French university libraries (SUDOC), a bibliographical knowledge base maintained by the University Bibliographic Agency (ABES).

5 citations


Cites background from "A Food Packaging Use Case for Argum..."

  • ...The two approaches come down to same semantic results, of course, but di↵er from a computational point of view as well as methodological [14, 33, 13, 18, 32]....

    [...]

Proceedings ArticleDOI
08 May 2019
TL;DR: NAKED is a new generator for n-ary logic-based argumentation frameworks instantiated from inconsistent knowledge bases expressed using \datalog to import a knowledge base in DLGP format, generate, visualise and export the corresponding argumentation hypergraph.
Abstract: In this demonstration paper, we introduce NAKED: a new generator for n-ary logic-based argumentation frameworks instantiated from inconsistent knowledge bases expressed using \datalog. The tool allows to import a knowledge base in DLGP format, generate, visualise and export the corresponding argumentation hypergraph. We show its application on a use-case from the NoAW project.

4 citations


Cites background from "A Food Packaging Use Case for Argum..."

  • ...All of these functions could be useful for a non computer science expert who wants to reason over an inconsistent KB in a particular domain using argumentation [4, 23, 24]....

    [...]

References
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: By showing that argumentation can be viewed as a special form of logic programming with negation as failure, this paper introduces a general logic-programming-based method for generating meta-interpreters for argumentation systems, a method very much similar to the compiler-compiler idea in conventional programming.

4,386 citations


"A Food Packaging Use Case for Argum..." refers background in this paper

  • ...see [3] for more details about semantics)....

    [...]

  • ...– Software for extension computation (an extension is defined as a conflict-free subset of arguments defending themselves against attacks computed under a considered semantics [3]) over an argumentation graph given as input, like OVA-GEN and ArguLab....

    [...]

  • ...The computation of extensions is made under one semantics (preferred, stable, grounded, eager, semi-stable, semistable, ideal) as defined in [3]....

    [...]

Journal ArticleDOI
Henry Prakken1
TL;DR: An abstract framework for structured arguments is presented, which instantiates Dung's (‘On the Acceptability of Arguments and its Fundamental Role in Nonmonotonic Reasoning, Logic Programming, and n-Person Games’, Artificial Intelligence, 77, 321–357) abstract argumentation frameworks.
Abstract: An abstract framework for structured arguments is presented, which instantiates Dung's (‘On the Acceptability of Arguments and its Fundamental Role in Nonmonotonic Reasoning, Logic Programming, and n-Person Games’, Artificial Intelligence, 77, 321–357) abstract argumentation frameworks. Arguments are defined as inference trees formed by applying two kinds of inference rules: strict and defeasible rules. This naturally leads to three ways of attacking an argument: attacking a premise, attacking a conclusion and attacking an inference. To resolve such attacks, preferences may be used, which leads to three corresponding kinds of defeat: undermining, rebutting and undercutting defeats. The nature of the inference rules, the structure of the logical language on which they operate and the origin of the preferences are, apart from some basic assumptions, left unspecified. The resulting framework integrates work of Pollock, Vreeswijk and others on the structure of arguments and the nature of defeat and extends it...

584 citations


"A Food Packaging Use Case for Argum..." refers methods in this paper

  • ...As in [11, 12] and by using a derivation process, this module builds all possible arguments according to the logical process defined in ASPIC/ASPIC+ logic-based argumentation frameworks [1, 5]....

    [...]

01 Jan 2010
TL;DR: In this article, an abstract framework for structured arguments is presented that instantiates Dung's (1995) abstract argumentation frameworks, where arguments are defined as inference trees formed by applying two kinds of inference rules: strict and defeasible rules.
Abstract: An abstract framework for structured arguments is presented that instantiates Dung’s (1995) abstract argumentation frameworks. Arguments are defined as inference trees formed by applying two kinds of inference rules: strict and defeasible rules. This naturally leads to three ways of attacking an argument: attacking a premise, attacking a conclusion and attacking an inference. To resolve such attacks, preferences may be used, which leads to three corresponding kinds of defeat: undermining, rebutting and undercutting defeat. The nature of the inference rules, the structure of the logic al language on which they operate and the origin of the preferences are, apart from some basic assumptions, left unspecified. The resulting framework integrates work of Pollock, Vreeswijk and others on the structure of arguments and the nature of defeat, and extends it in several respects. Various rationality postulates are proven to be satisfied by the framework, and several existing approaches a re proven to be a special case of the framework, including assumption-based argumentation and DefLog. In 1995 Phan Minh Dung introduced an abstract formalism for argumentation-based inference (Dung 1995), which assumes as input nothing else but a set (of arguments) ordered by a binary relation (of attack). Although he thus fully abst racted from the structure of arguments and the nature of the attack relation, he was still able to develop an extremely interesting theory. His article was a breakthrough in three ways: it provided a general and intuitive semantics for the consequence notions of argumentation logics (and for nonmonotonic logics in general); it made a precise comparison possible between different systems (by translating them into his abstract format); and it made a general study of formal properties of systems possible, which are inherited by instantiations of his framework. In consequence, Dung’s work has given an enormous boost to re search in computational argumentation. Yet it has also been criticised for not speci fying the structure of arguments and the nature of the attack relation, which makes it less sui table for modelling specific argumentation problems. I believe that such criticism fails t o appreciate the nature of Dung’s formalism. It is best seen not as a formalism for directly rep resenting argumentation-based inference problems but as a tool for analysing particular argumentation systems and for developing a metatheory of such systems. As such it has been very successful: differences between particular systems can be characterised in terms of some simple notions, and formal results established for the framework are inherited by its instantiations. This was already illustrated by Dung (1995) with reconstructions of Pollock’s (1987) system, various logic-programming semantics and Reiter’s (1980) d efault logic in his formalism.

576 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: Araucaria aims to be of use not only in pedagogical situations, but also in support of research activity, and has been designed from the outset to handle more advanced argumentation theoretic concepts such as schemes, which capture stereotypical patterns of reasoning.
Abstract: Argumentation theory involves the analysis of naturally occurring argument, and one key tool employed to this end both in the academic community and in teaching critical thinking skills to undergraduates is argument diagramming. By identifying the structure of an argument in terms of its constituents and the relationships between them, it becomes easier to critically evaluate each part of an argument in turn. The task of analysis and diagramming, however, is labor intensive and often idiosyncratic, which can make academic exchange difficult. The Araucaria system provides an interface which supports the diagramming process, and then saves the result using AML, an open standard, designed in XML, for describing argument structure. Araucaria aims to be of use not only in pedagogical situations, but also in support of research activity. As a result, it has been designed from the outset to handle more advanced argumentation theoretic concepts such as schemes, which capture stereotypical patterns of reasoning. The software is also designed to be compatible with a number of applications under development, including dialogic interaction and online corpus provision. Together, these features, combined with its platform independence and ease of use, have the potential to make Araucaria a valuable resource for the academic community.

414 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: This article provides a comprehensive and comparative overview of approaches to modeling argumentation for the Social Semantic Web from theoretical foundational models to Social Web tools for argumentation, following the path to a global World Wide Argument Web.
Abstract: Argumentation represents the study of views and opinions that humans express with the goal of reaching a conclusion through logical reasoning Since the 1950's, several models have been proposed to capture the essence of informal argumentation in different settings With the emergence of the Web, and then the Semantic Web, this modeling shifted towards ontologies, while from the development perspective, we witnessed an important increase in Web 20 human-centered collaborative deliberation tools Through a review of more than 150 scholarly papers, this article provides a comprehensive and comparative overview of approaches to modeling argumentation for the Social Semantic Web We start from theoretical foundational models and investigate how they have influenced Social Web tools We also look into Semantic Web argumentation models Finally we end with Social Web tools for argumentation, including online applications combining Web 20 and Semantic Web technologies, following the path to a global World Wide Argument Web

120 citations


"A Food Packaging Use Case for Argum..." refers methods in this paper

  • ...From the argumentation-based software standpoint, based on the recent survey of [8] and the web site http://www....

    [...]

Frequently Asked Questions (2)
Q1. What contributions have the authors mentioned in the paper "A food packaging use case for argumentation" ?

Within the framework of the European project EcoBioCap ( ECOefficient BIOdegradable Composite Advanced Packaging ), aiming at conceiving the next generation of food packagings, the authors introduce an argumentation-based tool for management of conflicting viewpoints between preferences expressed by the involved parties ( food and packaging industries, health and waste management authorities, consumers, etc. ). In this paper the authors recall briefly the principles underlying the reasoning process, and they detail the main functionalities and the architecture of the argumentation tool covering the overall reasoning steps starting from formal representation of text arguments and ending by extraction of justified preferences. Finally, the authors detail its operational functioning through a real life case study to determine the justifiable choices between recyclable, compostable and biodegradable packaging materials based on stakeholders ’ arguments. 

So, one work in progress is to extend the proposed approach to fuzziness to make it possible to deal with vague and uncertain concepts and rules [ 10, 9 ].