This paper describes an argumentation system for cooperative design applications on the Web. The system provides experts involved in such procedures means of expressing and weighing their individual arguments and preferences, in order to argue for or against the selection of a certain choice. It supports defeasible and qualitative reasoning in the presence of ill-structured information. Argumentation is performed through a set of discourse acts which call a variety of procedures for the propagation of information int eh corresponding discussion graph. The paper also reports on the integration of CAse Based Reasoning techniques, used to resolve current design issues by considering previous similar situations, and the specification of similarity measures between the various argumentation items, the aim being to estiamte the variations among opinions of the designers involved in cooperative design.
展开▼
