Jörn Sprado, Björn Gottfried


Decision Support Systems play a crucial role when controversial points of views are to be considered in order to make decisions. In this paper we outline a framework for argumentation and decision support. This framework defines arguments which refer to conceptual descriptions of the given state of affairs. Based on their meaning and based on preferences that adopt specific viewpoints, it is possible to determine consistent positions depending on these viewpoints. We investigate our approach by examining soccer games, since many observed spatiotemporal behaviours in soccer can be interpreted differently. Hence, the soccer domain is particularly suitable for investigating spatiotemporal decision support systems.


  1. Amgoud, L., Cayrol, C., Lagasquie, M. C., and Livet, P. (2008). On bipolarity in argumentation frameworks. In Int. Journal Of Intell. Systems, 23(10):1062-1093.
  2. Baader, F., Calvanese, D., McGuinness, D. L., Nardi, D., and Patel-Schneider, P. F., editors (2003). The Descript. Logic Handb.: Theo., Impl. and Appl. CUP.
  3. Bench-Capon, T. J. M. (2003). Persuasion in practical argument using value-based argumentation frameworks. Journal of Logic and Computation, 13(3):429-448.
  4. Bench-Capon, T. J. M., Doutre, S., and Dunne, P. E. (2007). Audiences in argumentation frameworks. Artificial Intelligence, 171(1):42-71.
  5. Bench-Capon, T. J. M. and Dunne, P. E. (2007). Argumentation in artificial intelligence. Artificial Intelligence, 171(10-15):619-641.
  6. Bowers, S., Lin, K., and Ludäscher, B. (2004). On integrating scientific resources through semantic registration. In In 16th Int. SSDBM, pages 21-23.
  7. Dung, P. M. (1995). On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmon. reas., logic prog. and n-pers. games. Artificial Intelligence, 77(2):321-358.
  8. Gruber, T. R. (1995). Towards principles for the design of ontologies used for knowledge sharing. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 43:907-928.
  9. Patel-Schneider, P. F., Hayes, P., and Horrocks, I. (2004). Owl web ontology language semantics and abstract syntax. Technical report, W3C.
  10. Rahwan, I. (2008). Mass argumentation and the semantic web. Web Semantics: Science, Services and Agents on the World Wide Web, 6(1):29 - 37.
  11. Rahwan, I. and Banihashemi, B. (2008). Arguments in owl: A progress report. In COMMA, volume 172 of Frontiers in AI and Appl., pages 297-310. IOS Press.
  12. Sattler, U., Calvanese, D., and Molitor, R. (2003). Relationship with other formalisms. In The Descript. Logic Handb.: Theo., Impl. and Appl., pages 137-177. CUP.
  13. Sirin, E., Parsia, B., Grau, B. C., Kalyanpur, A., and Katz, Y. (2007). Pellet: A practical owl-dl reasoner. Journal of Web Semantics, 5(2):51-53.
  14. Sprado, J. and Gottfried, B. (2008a). Grammar-based argument construction. In I. Lovrek et al., editor, KES (1), volume 5177 of LNCS, pages 330-340. Springer.
  15. Sprado, J. and Gottfried, B. (2008b). What motions patterns tell us about soccer teams. In RoboCup 2008: Robot Soccer World Cup XII, Suzhou, China. Springer.
  16. Uschold, M. (1998). Knowledge level modelling: concepts and terminology. The Knowledge Engineering Review, 13(01):5-29.

Paper Citation

in Harvard Style

Sprado J. and Gottfried B. (2009). SEMANTIC ARGUMENTATION IN DYNAMIC ENVIRONMENTS . In Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems - Volume 2: ICEIS, ISBN 978-989-8111-85-2, pages 236-241. DOI: 10.5220/0002010702360241

in Bibtex Style

author={Jörn Sprado and Björn Gottfried},
booktitle={Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems - Volume 2: ICEIS,},

in EndNote Style

JO - Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems - Volume 2: ICEIS,
SN - 978-989-8111-85-2
AU - Sprado J.
AU - Gottfried B.
PY - 2009
SP - 236
EP - 241
DO - 10.5220/0002010702360241