Abstract
Argumentation systems can be employed for detecting spatiotemporal patterns. While the idea of argumentation consists in defending specific positions, complex patterns are influenced by several factors that can be regarded as arguments against or in favor of the realisation of those patterns. The idea is to determine consistent positions of arguments which speak for specific patterns. This becomes possible by means of algorithms which have been defined for argumentation systems. The introduced method of conceptual argumentation is new in comparison to classical, i.e. value-based, argumentation systems. It has the advantage to be more flexible by enabling the definition of conceptual arguments influencing relevant patterns. There are two main results: first, conceptual argumentation frameworks do scale significantly better; secondly, investigating our approach by examining soccer games, we show that specific patterns, such as passes, can be detected with different retrieval performances depending on the chosen spatial granularity level.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Amgoud, L., Cayrol, C., Lagasquie, M.C., Livet, P.: On bipolarity in argumentation frameworks. In International Journal of Intelligent Systems 23(10), 1062–1093 (2008)
Baader, F., Calvanese, D., McGuinness, D.L., Nardi, D., Patel-Schneider, P.F. (eds.): The Description Logic Handbook: Theory, Implementation and Applications. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2003)
Bench-Capon, T.J.M.: Persuasion in practical argument using value-based argumentation frameworks. Journal of Logic and Computation 13(3), 429–448 (2003)
Bench-Capon, T.J.M., Dunne, P.E.: Argumentation in artificial intelligence. Artificial Intelligence 171(10-15), 619–641 (2007)
Bowers, S., Lin, K., Ludäscher, B.: On integrating scientific resources through semantic registration. In: 16th International Conference on Scientific and Statistical Database Management (SSDBM), Santorini Island, pp. 21–23 (2004)
Dimopoulos, Y., Torres, A.: Graph theoretical structures in logic programs and default theories. Theoretical Computer Science 170(1-2), 209–244 (1996)
Dung, P.M.: On the Acceptability of Arguments and its Fundamental Role in Nonmonotonic Reasoning, Logic Programming and n-Person Games. Artificial Intelligence 77(2), 321–358 (1995)
Dunne, P.E., Wooldridge, M.: Complexity of Abstract Argumentation. In: Simari, G., Rahwan, I. (eds.), pp. 85–104 (2009)
Egly, U., Gaggl, S.A., Woltran, S.: Aspartix: Implementing argumentation frameworks using answer-set programming. In: Garcia de la Banda, M., Pontelli, E. (eds.) ICLP 2008. LNCS, vol. 5366, pp. 734–738. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)
Gruber, T.R.: Towards principles for the design of ontologies used for knowledge sharing. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 43, 907–928 (1995)
Rahwan, I.: Mass argumentation and the semantic web. Web Semantics: Science, Services and Agents on the World Wide Web 6(1), 29–37 (2008)
Rahwan, I., Banihashemi, B.: Arguments in owl: A progress report. In: COMMA. Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications, vol. 172, pp. 297–310. IOS Press, Amsterdam (2008)
Sattler, U., Calvanese, D., Molitor, R.: Relationship with other formalisms. In: The Description Logic Handbook: Theory, Implementation and Applications, pp. 137–177. CUP, Cambridge (2003)
Sirin, E., Parsia, B., Grau, B.C., Kalyanpur, A., Katz, Y.: Pellet: A practical owl-dl reasoner. Journal of Web Semantics 5(2), 51–53 (2007)
Sprado, J., Gottfried, B.: What motion patterns tell us about soccer teams. In: Iocchi, L., Matsubara, H., Weitzenfeld, A., Zhou, C. (eds.) RoboCup 2008: Robot Soccer World Cup XII. LNCS, vol. 5399, pp. 614–625. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)
Uschold, M.: Knowledge level modelling: concepts and terminology. The Knowledge Engineering Review 13(1), 5–29 (1998)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2010 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this paper
Cite this paper
Sprado, J., Gottfried, B., Herzog, O. (2010). Flexible Concept-Based Argumentation in Dynamic Scenes. In: Dillmann, R., Beyerer, J., Hanebeck, U.D., Schultz, T. (eds) KI 2010: Advances in Artificial Intelligence. KI 2010. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 6359. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-16111-7_13
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-16111-7_13
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-642-16110-0
Online ISBN: 978-3-642-16111-7
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)