“…This is close to the approach adopted by [34], though the latter paper captures critical questions though the use of undercutting [39] rules, which (in our example) would deny the applicability of the transitivity rule rather than (as we do) ensuring that the argument generated using the rule is defeated. Of course, undercutting attacks are implicitly a metalevel notion.…”
mentioning
confidence: 60%
“…As already mentioned, metalevel argumentation was formally introduced in [32], and the idea of metalevel argumentation has been used [31] to provide an abstract integration of accrual and dialectical argumentation and to integrate argumentation-based reasoning about preferences with the object level arguments. [44] presented an argumentation-based model of social interaction integrating both object-level and metalevel argumentation, and, as already mentioned, [34] integrated structured argumentation and metalevel argumentation to express argumentation schemes. Both these latter papers are a close fit with what we discuss here, though neither addresses our firewall domain.…”
Abstract. Firewalls are an important tool in the assurance of network security. Packet filtering firewalls are configured by providing a set of rules that identify how to handle individual data packets that arrive at the firewall. In large firewall configurations, conflicts may arise between these rules. Argumentation provides a way of handling conflicts such that their origin is illuminated, and hence can help a system administrator understand the effects of a given configuration. To show how argumentation might help in this domain we examine the use of a system of metalevel argumentation for firewall configuration, showing how it makes conflicts and their origins clear, and showing how different instantiations of a metalevel argumentation system provide alternative ways to resolve conflicts.
“…This is close to the approach adopted by [34], though the latter paper captures critical questions though the use of undercutting [39] rules, which (in our example) would deny the applicability of the transitivity rule rather than (as we do) ensuring that the argument generated using the rule is defeated. Of course, undercutting attacks are implicitly a metalevel notion.…”
mentioning
confidence: 60%
“…As already mentioned, metalevel argumentation was formally introduced in [32], and the idea of metalevel argumentation has been used [31] to provide an abstract integration of accrual and dialectical argumentation and to integrate argumentation-based reasoning about preferences with the object level arguments. [44] presented an argumentation-based model of social interaction integrating both object-level and metalevel argumentation, and, as already mentioned, [34] integrated structured argumentation and metalevel argumentation to express argumentation schemes. Both these latter papers are a close fit with what we discuss here, though neither addresses our firewall domain.…”
Abstract. Firewalls are an important tool in the assurance of network security. Packet filtering firewalls are configured by providing a set of rules that identify how to handle individual data packets that arrive at the firewall. In large firewall configurations, conflicts may arise between these rules. Argumentation provides a way of handling conflicts such that their origin is illuminated, and hence can help a system administrator understand the effects of a given configuration. To show how argumentation might help in this domain we examine the use of a system of metalevel argumentation for firewall configuration, showing how it makes conflicts and their origins clear, and showing how different instantiations of a metalevel argumentation system provide alternative ways to resolve conflicts.
“…This paper presents an approach for reasoning about trust in dialogues that combines three of the most popular mechanisms used within computational modelling of argumentation: ASPIC+ [10], argument schemes [12] and meta-argumentation [7,11].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…We map arguments and attacks in our hierarchical system to arguments and defeats in a bimodal argument graph [7] by stating that argument a defeats argument b iff a attacks b and there are some meta-arguments α, β such that α supports a and β supports b and α attacks β. Properties of the argument framework at the object level is encoded using a fragment of ASPIC+.…”
Section: The Object Level (L 0 )mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Since we consider the arguments advanced during the dialogue, as well as argument about those arguments, our approach builds on Muller's meta-argumentation system [7]. Here, object-level arguments are advanced which deal with the topic of the dialogue.…”
The conclusions drawn from a dialogue depend both on the content of the arguments, and the level of trust placed in the arguments and the entity advancing them. In this paper, we describe a framework for dialogue where such trust forms the basis for expressing preferences between arguments, and in turn, for computing conclusions of the dialogue. Our framework contains object and meta-level arguments, and uses ASPIC+ to represent arguments, while argument schemes capture meta-level arguments about trust and preferences.
This work defines a burden of persuasion meta-argumentation model interpreting the burden as a set of meta-arguments. Bimodal graphs are exploited to define a meta level (dealing with the burden) and an object level (dealing with standard arguments). Finally, an example in the law domain addressing the problem of burden inversion is discussed in detail.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.