The Community for Technology Leaders
RSS Icon
Issue No.06 - November/December (2007 vol.22)
pp: 75-83
Jamal Bentahar , Concordia University, Canada
Zakaria Maamar , Zayed University
Djamal Benslimane , Claude Bernard Lyon 1 University, France
Philippe Thiran , University of Namur
Argumentation theory can improve Web services functionality and help track the composition scenarios these Web services engage in. The authors implement an argumentation theory through a set of software agents that reason about Web services in terms of argumentation and persuasion. Web services enter and leave their respective communities and take part in composition scenarios. All this occurs according to a formal dialogue-game protocol that combines flexible policies comprising persuasion and negotiation phases. Agents' reasoning about Web services is specified using Horn theory. The authors prove that this kind of reasoning can be implemented and theoretically tractable. This article is part of a special issue on argumentation technology.
Argumentation, Dialogue game, Community, Computational complexity, Web services.
Jamal Bentahar, Zakaria Maamar, Djamal Benslimane, Philippe Thiran, "An Argumentation Framework for Communities of Web Services", IEEE Intelligent Systems, vol.22, no. 6, pp. 75-83, November/December 2007, doi:10.1109/MIS.2007.99
1. Z. Maamar et al., "Web Services Communities—Concepts &Operations," Proc. 3rd Int'l Conf. Web Information Systems and Technologies (WEBIST 07), 2007, pp. 323–327.
2. I. Rahwan, "Guest Editorial: Argumentation in Multi-Agent Systems," J. Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, vol. 11, no. 2, 2006, pp. 115–125.
3. B. Benatallah, Q.Z. Sheng, and M. Dumas, "The Self-Serv Environment for Web Services Composition," IEEE Internet Computing, vol. 7, no. 1, 2003, pp. 40–48.
4. C.I. Chesñevar, A. Maguitman, and R. Loui, "Logical Models of Argument," ACM Computing Surveys, vol. 32, no. 4, 2000, pp. 337–383.
5. H. Prakken and G.A.W. Vreeswijk, "Logics for Defeasible Argumentation," Handbook of Philosophical Logic, 2nd ed., Kluwer Academic, D.M. Gabbay and F. Guenthner, eds., vol. 4, 2002, pp. 219–318.
6. S. Parsons, M. Wooldridge, and L. Amgoud, "Properties and Complexity of Some Formal Inter-agent Dialogues," J. Logic and Computation, vol. 3, no. 13, 2003, pp. 347–376.
7. J. Bentahar, B. Moulin, and B. Chaib-draa, "Specifying and Implementing a Persuasion Dialogue Game using Commitments and Arguments," Argumentation in Multi-Agent Systems, vol. 3366, Springer, 2005, pp. 130–148.
8. P. McBurney and S. Parsons, "Games That Agents Play: A Formal Framework for Dialogues between Autonomous Agents," J. Logic, Language, and Information, vol. 11, no. 3, 2002, pp. 315–334.
9. D. Walton and E. Krabbe, Commitment in Dialogue: Basic Concepts of Interpersonal Reasoning, State University of New York Press, 1995.
10. W. Dowling and J.H. Gallier, "Linear-time Algorithms for Testing the Satisfiability of Propositional Horn Theories," J. Logic Programming, vol. 1, no. 3, 1984, pp. 267–284.
11. P. McBurney, S. Parsons, and M. Wooldridge, "Desiderata for Agent Argumentation Protocols," Proc. 1st Int'l Conf. Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems, 2002, pp. 402–409.
17 ms
(Ver 2.0)

Marketing Automation Platform Marketing Automation Tool