A Food Packaging Use Case for Argumentation

International audienceWithin the framework of the European project EcoBioCap (ECOefficient BIOdegradable Composite Advanced Packaging), aiming at conceiving the next generation of food packagings, we introduce an argumentation-based tool for management of conflicting viewpoints between preferences expressed by the involved parties (food and packaging industries, health and waste management authorities, consumers, etc.). In this paper we recall briefly the principles underlying the reasoning process, and we detail the main functionalities and the architecture of the argumentation tool covering the overall reasoning steps starting from formal representation of text arguments and ending by extraction of justified preferences. Finally, we detail its operational functioning through a real life case study to determine the justifiable choices between recyclable, compostable and biodegradable packaging materials based on stakeholders’ arguments

Argumentation for conflicting viewpoint relational database querying

Within the framework of the European project EcoBioCap, we model a real world use case aiming at conceiving the next generation of food packagings. The objective is to select packaging materials according to possibly con icting requirements expressed by the involved parties (food and packaging industries, health authorities, consumers, waste management authority, etc.). The requirements and user preferences are modeled by several ontological rules provided by the stake- holders expressing their viewpoints and expertise. Since several aspects need to be considered (CO2 and O2 permeance, interaction with the product, sanitary, cost, end of life, etc.) in order to select objects, an argumentation process can be used to express/reason about different aspects or criteria describing the packagings. We define then in this report an argumentation approach which combines a description logic (DLR-Lite) within ASPIC framework for relational database querying. The argumentation step is nally used to express and/or enrich a bipolar query employed for packaging selection

Conflicting viewpoint relational database querying: an argumentation approach

International audienceWithin the framework of the European project EcoBioCap, we model a real world use case aiming at conceiving the next generation of food packagings. The objective is to select packaging materials according to possibly conflicting requirements expressed by the involved parties (food and packaging industries, health authorities, consumers, waste management authority, etc.). The requirements and user preferences are modeled by several ontological rules provided by the stakeholders expressing their viewpoints and expertise. Since several aspects need to be considered (CO2 and O2 permeance, interaction with the product, sanitary, cost, end of life, etc.) in order to select objects, an argumentation process can be used to express/reason about different aspects or criteria describing the packagings. We define then in this paper an argumentation approach which combines a description logic (DLR-Lite) within ASPIC framework for relational database querying. The argumentation step is finally used to express and/or enrich a bipolar query employed for packaging selection

An argumentation system for eco-efficient packaging material selection

UMR IATE Axe 5 : Application intégrée de la connaissance, de l’information et des technologies permettant d’accroître la qualité et la sécurité des aliments UMR IATE Axe 3 : Transferts de matière et réactions dans les systèmes aliment/emballageInternational audienceWithin the framework of the European project EcoBioCap (ECOefficient BIOdegradable Composite Advanced Packaging), aiming at conceiving the next generation of food packagings, we have designed an argumentation-based tool for management of conflicting viewpoints between preferences expressed by the involved parties (food and packaging industries, health authorities, consumers, waste management authority, etc.). The requirements and user preferences are modeled by several rules provided by the stakeholders expressing their viewpoints and expertise. Based on these rules, the argumentation tool computes consensual preferences which are used to parameterize a flexible querying process of a packaging database to retrieve the most relevant solution to pack a given food. In this paper, we recall briefly the principles underlying the reasoning process, and we detail the main functionalities and the architecture of the argumentation tool. We cover the overall reasoning steps starting from formal representation of text arguments and ending by extraction of justified preferences which are sent to the database querying process. Finally, we detail its operational functioning through a real life case study to determine the justifiable choices between recyclable, compostable and biodegradable packaging materials based on stakeholders’ arguments

Arguing with Preferences in EcoBioCap

International audienceIn this paper we present the EcoBioCap project and the modelling needs of this project in terms of argumentation based preference aggregation. The aim of the paper is to well describe the problem encountered in this context and to propose a preference logic in line with the expressivity needed by the application. We then show how to embed this logic within the ASPIC+ system. Finally, we show how argument by expert opinion could be integrated within our framework where preference aggregation needs to take into consideration the different expertise of the project stakeholders

Safety assessment of the process ‘4PET’, based on EREMA Basic technology, used to recycle post-consumer PET into food contact materials

Publisher PD

Argumentative patterns in discourse

This paper discusses the ways in which argumentative discourse prototypically manifests itself. As a consequence of the institutional preconditions applying to the strategic manoeuvring taking place in specific communicative activity types, certain context-dependent argumentative patterns of standpoints, argument schemes and argumentation structures can be observed. Because of their interest in the extent to which argumentative discourse is context-dependent, pragma-dialecticians are out to discover such specific patterns. As a case in point, the authors discuss some institutionally motivated argumentative patterns in parliamentary debate in the European Parliament

Safety assessment of the process ‘Alimpet’, based on EREMA MPR technology, used to recycle post-consumer PET into food contact materials

Publisher PD

Problem-Solving Argumentative Patterns in Plenary Debates of the European Parliament

The aim of this paper is to describe the way in which argumentative patterns come into being in plenary debate over legislative issues in the European Parliament. What kind of argumentative patterns are to be expected within this macro context? It is shown that the argumentative patterns that come into being in legislative debate in the European Parliament depend for the most part on the problem-solving argumentation that is put forward in the opening speech by the rapporteur of the parliamentary committee report. This argumentation can be pragmatic problem-solving argumentation or complex problem-solving argumentation. The most important prototypical argumentative patterns are investigated in the argumentation put forward by the Members of parliament. This investigation is based on an inventory of the arguments that can in principle be used to support or attack the initial problem-solving argumentation put forward by the rapporteur

Safety assessment of the process ‘Coexpan Deutschland’, based on EREMA Basic technology, used to recycle post-consumer PET into food contact materials

Publisher PD