An Argumentation Framework based on contextual Preferences
Résumé
Argumentation is one of the promising approaches to handle inconsistency in knowledge bases. It consists of constructing arguments and counter-arguments (defeaters) and then selecting the most acceptable of them. In [1], a preference-based argumentation framework has been proposed. In that framework, the knowledge base is supposed to be equipped with a preordering between the beliefs. However there are limits to what can be achieved with this framework since it does not take into account the case where several preorderings on the beliefs (contextual preferences) are available. The aim of this paper is to extend the framework defined in [1] in order to reason from multiple points of view on an inconsistent knowledge base.