Theory of Regulatory Compliance for Requirements Engineering

Regulatory compliance is increasingly being addressed in the practice of requirements engineering as a main stream concern. This paper points out a gap in the theoretical foundations of regulatory compliance, and presents a theory that states (i) what it means for requirements to be compliant, (ii) the compliance problem, i.e., the problem that the engineer should resolve in order to verify whether requirements are compliant, and (iii) testable hypotheses (predictions) about how compliance of requirements is verified. The theory is instantiated by presenting a requirements engineering framework that implements its principles, and is exemplified on a real-world case study.Comment: 16 page

Jeux de dialogue : formalisation, gestion, terminaison et succès

http://www.di.unipi.it/~morge/publis/morge04agental.pdfInternational audienceDans cet article, nous présentons un modèle formel pour les dialogues argumentatifs entre agents. La notion de jeu de dialogue est formalisée à l'aide d'un ensemble de règles de séquençage décrivant les réponses possibles à un message. Nous proposons ici un jeu de demande d'information et un jeu de persuasion. La terminaison de tels dialogues est garantie dans tout les cas de figure. A l'inverse, certaines hypothèses sur la situation informationnelle initiale des participants sont nécessaires pour garantir que les buts de ces dialogues sont atteints

An abstract argumentation framework with comparison criterion

We define an abstract argumentation framework that includes a binary symmetric relation representing argument conflicts, and a function used to evaluate conflicting arguments. In this framework it is clear how defeat relations are constructed, even when the arguments are treated abstractly. We also present a basic classification of comparison criterions and its impact on the set of accepted arguments. Finally, we define the concept of improvements of a comparison criterion and its relation with the fallacies presented in the framework.Eje: Agentes y Sistemas Inteligentes (ASI)Red de Universidades con Carreras en Informática (RedUNCI

Acceptability semantics and contextual defeat relations in extended frameworks

In this work, contexts for extended argumentation frameworks (EAF) are defined. A context for an EAF is another framework where original arguments, conflicts and preferences are kept, while introducing new arguments leading to new defeat relations. Thus, the context may interfere with the original classification of arguments, inducing new set of extensions. These semantic change in the outcome of an extended framework in a particular context is characterized, and Dung’s acceptability concept is analyzed on this basis.Red de Universidades con Carreras en Informática (RedUNCI

Analyzing the defeat relation in observation-based defeasible logic programming

In the last decade several ways to formalize defeasible reasoning have been studied. A particular approach, defeasible argumentation, has been particularly successful to achieve this goal. The inference process of argument-based systems is based on the interaction of ar- guments for and against certain conclusions. The relations of attack and defeat among arguments are key elements in these inference process. Usually a preference criterion is used to calculate the defeat relation to decide, in case of con ict, which argument is preferred over its contender. Speci city is a domain independent principle that has been used in several formalisms. In this work we analyze the problem of incorporating speci city to characterize defeat in a particular argumentative framework, called Observation Based Defeasible Logic Program- ming. Since e ciency is an important issue in ODeLP, we have devised a new version of this criterion, that optimizes the computation of the defeat relation. We also present a formal proof to show that this new version is equivalent to the old one.Eje: V - Workshop de agentes y sistemas inteligentesRed de Universidades con Carreras en Informática (RedUNCI

Analyzing the defeat relation in observation-based defeasible logic programming

In the last decade several ways to formalize defeasible reasoning have been studied. A particular approach, defeasible argumentation, has been particularly successful to achieve this goal. The inference process of argument-based systems is based on the interaction of ar- guments for and against certain conclusions. The relations of attack and defeat among arguments are key elements in these inference process. Usually a preference criterion is used to calculate the defeat relation to decide, in case of con ict, which argument is preferred over its contender. Speci city is a domain independent principle that has been used in several formalisms. In this work we analyze the problem of incorporating speci city to characterize defeat in a particular argumentative framework, called Observation Based Defeasible Logic Program- ming. Since e ciency is an important issue in ODeLP, we have devised a new version of this criterion, that optimizes the computation of the defeat relation. We also present a formal proof to show that this new version is equivalent to the old one.Eje: V - Workshop de agentes y sistemas inteligentesRed de Universidades con Carreras en Informática (RedUNCI

Argumentation games for admissibility and cogency criteria

In this work, we develop a game-theoretic framework in which pro and con arguments are put forward. This framework intends to capture winning strategies for different defense criteria. In turn, each possible extension semantics satisfies a particular defense criterion. To ensure that only semantics satisfying given criteria are obtained, protocols for playing have to be defined, being the ensuing winning strategies full characterizations of the corresponding criteria. Admissibility and strong admissibility are two of those criteria proposed in the literature for the evaluation of extension semantics; here, we also introduce two weaker criteria, pairwise and weak cogency, for the evaluation of non-admissible semantics, and we define specific game protocolscapturing them.Fil: Bodanza, Gustavo Adrian. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Bahía Blanca. Instituto de Investigaciones Económicas y Sociales del Sur. Universidad Nacional del Sur. Departamento de Economía. Instituto de Investigaciones Económicas y Sociales del Sur; ArgentinaFil: Tohmé, Fernando Abel. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Bahía Blanca. Instituto de Investigaciones Económicas y Sociales del Sur. Universidad Nacional del Sur. Departamento de Economía. Instituto de Investigaciones Económicas y Sociales del Sur; ArgentinaFil: Simari, Guillermo Ricardo. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Bahía Blanca. Planta Piloto de Ingeniería Química. Universidad Nacional del Sur. Planta Piloto de Ingeniería Química; Argentin