Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Arguing About End-of-Life of Packagings: Preferences to the Rescue

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Metadata and Semantics Research (MTSR 2016)

Part of the book series: Communications in Computer and Information Science ((CCIS,volume 672))

Included in the following conference series:

Abstract

Argumentation methods and associated tools permit to analyze arguments against or in favor of a set of alternatives under discussion. The outputs of the argument methods are sets of conflict-free arguments collectively defending each other, called extensions. In case of multiple extensions, it is often difficult to select one out of many alternatives. We present in this paper the implementation of an complementary approach which permits to filter or rank extensions according to the expression of preferences. Methods and tools are illustrated on a real use case in food packagings. The aim is to help the industry choose among different end-of-life possibilities by linking together consumer behavior insights, socio-economic developments and technical properties of packagings. The tool has been used on a real use-case concerning end-of-life possibilities for packagings.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Accessible online at http://pfl.grignon.inra.fr/EcoBioCapProduction/ (although the access is restricted).

  2. 2.

    Please note that for simplicity purposes, we write that a concept belongs to an extension instead of writing that the argument with this concept as a conclusion is contained in the extension.

References

  1. Amgoud, L., Prade, H.: Explaining qualitative decision under uncertainty by argumentation. In: Proceedings, The Twenty-First National Conference on Artificial Intelligence and the Eighteenth Innovative Applications of Artificial Intelligence Conference, July 16–20, Boston, Massachusetts, USA, pp. 219–224 (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  2. Amgoud, L., Vesic, S.: Two roles of preferences in argumentation frameworks. In: Liu, W. (ed.) ECSQARU 2011. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 6717, pp. 86–97. Springer, Heidelberg (2011). doi:10.1007/978-3-642-22152-1_8

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  3. Arioua, A., Croitoru, M.: Formalizing explanatory dialogues. In: Beierle, C., Dekhtyar, A. (eds.) SUM 2015. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 9310, pp. 282–297. Springer, Heidelberg (2015). doi:10.1007/978-3-319-23540-0_19

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  4. Arioua, A., Croitoru, M.: Dialectical characterization of consistent query explanation with existential rules. In: Proceedings of FLAIRS 2016, pp. 621–625 (2016)

    Google Scholar 

  5. Arioua, A., Croitoru, M.: A dialectical proof theory for universal acceptance in coherent logic-based argumentation frameworks. In: Proceedings of ECAI (2016, to appear)

    Google Scholar 

  6. Croitoru, M., Thomopoulos, R., Vesic, S.: Introducing preference-based argumentation to inconsistent ontological knowledge bases. In: Chen, Q., Torroni, P., Villata, S., Hsu, J., Omicini, A. (eds.) PRIMA 2015. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 9387, pp. 594–602. Springer, Heidelberg (2015). doi:10.1007/978-3-319-25524-8_42

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  7. Croitoru, M., Vesic, S.: What can argumentation do for inconsistent ontology query answering? In: Liu, W., Subrahmanian, V.S., Wijsen, J. (eds.) SUM 2013. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 8078, pp. 15–29. Springer, Heidelberg (2013). doi:10.1007/978-3-642-40381-1_2

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  8. Dung, P.M.: On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games. Artif. Intell. 77(2), 321–358 (1995)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  9. Kaci, S.: Working with Preferences: Less Is More. Cognitive Technologies. Springer, New York (2011)

    Book  MATH  Google Scholar 

  10. Modgil, S., Prakken, H.: The ASPIC\({}^{\text{+ }}\) framework for structured argumentation: a tutorial. Argument Comput. 5(1), 31–62 (2014)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Tamani, N., Mosse, P., Croitoru, M., Buche, P., Guillard, V.: A food packaging use case for argumentation. In: Closs, S., Studer, R., Garoufallou, E., Sicilia, M.-A. (eds.) MTSR 2014. CCIS, vol. 478, pp. 344–358. Springer, Heidelberg (2014). doi:10.1007/978-3-319-13674-5_31

    Google Scholar 

  12. Tamani, N., Mosse, P., Croitoru, M., Buche, P., Guillard, V., Guillaume, C., Gontard, N.: Eco-efficient packaging material selection for fresh produce: industrial session. In: Hernandez, N., Jäschke, R., Croitoru, M. (eds.) ICCS 2014. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 8577, pp. 305–310. Springer, Heidelberg (2014). doi:10.1007/978-3-319-08389-6_27

    Google Scholar 

  13. Tamani, N., Mosse, P., Croitoru, M., Buche, P., Guillard, V., Guillaume, C., Gontard, N.: An argumentation system for eco-efficient packaging material selection. Comput. Electron. Agric. 113, 174–192 (2015)

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the partners of the Pack4Fresh project, for all their help during the argument elicitation phase as well as for their constant feedback.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. LIRMM, University of Montpellier, Montpellier, France

    Bruno Yun & Madalina Croitoru

  2. IATE, INRA, Montpellier, France

    Pierre Bisquert & Patrice Buche

Authors
  1. Bruno Yun
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Pierre Bisquert
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Patrice Buche
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Madalina Croitoru
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Pierre Bisquert .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Alexander Technological Educational Institute of Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki, Greece

    Emmanouel Garoufallou

  2. Alexander Technological Educational Inst , Rome, Italy

    Imma Subirats Coll

  3. Sapienza University of Rome , Rome, Italy

    Armando Stellato

  4. Drexel University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA

    Jane Greenberg

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 Springer International Publishing AG

About this paper

Cite this paper

Yun, B., Bisquert, P., Buche, P., Croitoru, M. (2016). Arguing About End-of-Life of Packagings: Preferences to the Rescue. In: Garoufallou, E., Subirats Coll, I., Stellato, A., Greenberg, J. (eds) Metadata and Semantics Research. MTSR 2016. Communications in Computer and Information Science, vol 672. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-49157-8_10

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-49157-8_10

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-49156-1

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-49157-8

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation