Sorne theoretical considerations on resource-bounded defeasible argurnentation
During the last decade, defeasible argumentation has proven to be a fruitful formalization for modelling commonsense reasorúng. In this respect, the MTDR framework has come to be a fairly standard approach, because of its simplicity and expressive power. Recently, the framework has been enriched thr...
Guardado en:
| Autores principales: | , |
|---|---|
| Formato: | Objeto de conferencia |
| Lenguaje: | Inglés |
| Publicado: |
1996
|
| Materias: | |
| Acceso en línea: | http://sedici.unlp.edu.ar/handle/10915/24237 |
| Aporte de: |
| Sumario: | During the last decade, defeasible argumentation has proven to be a fruitful formalization for modelling commonsense reasorúng. In this respect, the MTDR framework has come to be a fairly standard approach, because of its simplicity and expressive power. Recently, the framework has been enriched through a number of dialectical considerations, resulting in a new ontology, based on Rescher's model of theory formation through dispute.
The current trend is that dispute is the most fair and effective way to investigate the tenability of claims. However, dispute is usually resource-bounded, so that the notion of u1timately supported claims (or justifications) cannot be separated from this issue. This paper discusses sorne theoretical considerations for an extension of MTDR where bounds on resources are taken into account. |
|---|