Paul J. Krause

Nurulhuda A. Manaf, Sotiris Moschoyiannis, Paul Krause

We propose the use of structured natural language (English) in specifying service choreographies, focusing on the what rather than the how of the required coordination of participant services in realising a business application scenario. The declarative approach we propose uses the OMG standard Semantics of Business Vocabulary and Rules (SBVR) as a modelling language. The service choreography approach has been proposed for describing the global orderings of the invocations on interfaces of participant services. We therefore extend SBVR with a notion of time which can capture the coordination of the participant services, in terms of the observable message exchanges between them. The extension is done using existing modelling constructs in SBVR, and hence respects the standard specification. The idea is that users - domain specialists rather than implementation specialists - can verify the requested service composition by directly reading the structured English used by SBVR. At the same time, the SBVR model can be represented in formal logic so it can be parsed and executed by a machine.

John Fox, Paul J. Krause

The ability to reason under uncertainty and with incomplete information is a fundamental requirement of decision support technology. In this paper we argue that the concentration on theoretical techniques for the evaluation and selection of decision options has distracted attention from many of the wider issues in decision making. Although numerical methods of reasoning under uncertainty have strong theoretical foundations, they are representationally weak and only deal with a small part of the decision process. Knowledge based systems, on the other hand, offer greater flexibility but have not been accompanied by a clear decision theory. We describe here work which is under way towards providing a theoretical framework for symbolic decision procedures. A central proposal is an extended form of inference which we call argumentation; reasoning for and against decision options from generalised domain theories. The approach has been successfully used in several decision support applications, but it is argued that a comprehensive decision theory must cover autonomous decision making, where the agent can formulate questions as well as take decisions. A major theoretical challenge for this theory is to capture the idea of reflection to permit decision agents to reason about their goals, what they believe and why, and what they need to know or do in order to achieve their goals.

John Fox, Paul J. Krause, Morten Elvang-Gøransson

Argumentation is the process of constructing arguments about propositions, and the assignment of statements of confidence to those propositions based on the nature and relative strength of their supporting arguments. The process is modelled as a labelled deductive system, in which propositions are doubly labelled with the grounds on which they are based and a representation of the confidence attached to the argument. Argument construction is captured by a generalized argument consequence relation based on the ^,--fragment of minimal logic. Arguments can be aggregated by a variety of numeric and symbolic flattening functions. This approach appears to shed light on the common logical structure of a variety of quantitative, qualitative and defeasible uncertainty calculi.

Morten Elvang-Gøransson, Paul J. Krause, John Fox

From an inconsistent database non-trivial arguments may be constructed both for a proposition, and for the contrary of that proposition. Therefore, inconsistency in a logical database causes uncertainty about which conclusions to accept. This kind of uncertainty is called logical uncertainty. We define a concept of "acceptability", which induces a means for differentiating arguments. The more acceptable an argument, the more confident we are in it. A specific interest is to use the acceptability classes to assign linguistic qualifiers to propositions, such that the qualifier assigned to a propositions reflects its logical uncertainty. A more general interest is to understand how classes of acceptability can be defined for arguments constructed from an inconsistent database, and how this notion of acceptability can be devised to reflect different criteria. Whilst concentrating on the aspects of assigning linguistic qualifiers to propositions, we also indicate the more general significance of the notion of acceptability.