.png){kind=icon}
.png){kind=icon}
Return
Argumentation graphs with constraint-based reasoning for collaborative expertise
.png){kind=icon}
OA
AI
DOI：10.1016/j.future.2017.09.081.png)
.png){kind=icon}
.png){kind=icon}
Share.png){kind=icon}
Save
Abstract
En 中文
Collaborative processes are very important in telemedicine domain since they allow for making right decisions in complex situations with multidisciplinary staff. When modelling these collaborative processes, some inconsistencies can appear. In semantic modelling (conceptual graphs), these inconsistencies are verified using constraints. In this work, collaborative processes are represented using an argumentation system modelled in a conceptual graph formalism where inconsistencies could be particular bad attack relation between arguments. To overcome these inconsistencies, two solutions are proposed. The first one is to weight the arguments evolving in the argumentation system on the basis of the competencies of the health professionals and the credibility of the sources justifying their advice (arguments), and the second one is to model some law concepts as constraints in order to check their compliance of the collaborative process. (C) 2017 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Keywords:
Argumentation theory
Decision making
Conceptual graphs
Inconsistencies
Weighting
Medical deontology
AI Summary
Key information extracted from the uploaded paper, including a brief overview, abstract, background, key highlights, visual analysis, and future outlook.
Journal
F
IF:
6.1
Papers:
6.8K
Citations:
2.3W
View more organizations