6533b859fe1ef96bd12b8369

RESEARCH PRODUCT

Argumentation graphs with constraint-based reasoning for collaborative expertise

Hugues KenfackClovis FoguemBernard Kamsu-foguemMamadou Bilo Doumbouya

subject

Constraint based reasoningmedical deontologyComputer Networks and CommunicationsComputer sciencedomain0206 medical engineeringMédecine humaine et pathologieArgumentation theory02 engineering and technologyInconsistenciesWeightingdecision makingArgumentation theoryAutreMultidisciplinary approachframeworksCredibilityconceptual graphs0202 electrical engineering electronic engineering information engineeringinconsistenciesCompetence (human resources)Health professionalsManagement scienceMedical deontology[INFO.INFO-LO]Computer Science [cs]/Logic in Computer Science [cs.LO]decision-makingargumentation theory16. Peace & justice020601 biomedical engineeringWeightingassignmentConceptual graphsHardware and ArchitectureConceptual graph020201 artificial intelligence & image processingweightingteleexpertiseDecision makingpreference-based argumentationmanagement[SDV.MHEP]Life Sciences [q-bio]/Human health and pathologySoftware

description

International audience; Collaborative processes are very important in telemedicine domain since they allow for making right decisions in complex situations with multidisciplinary staff. When modelling these collaborative processes, some inconsistencies can appear. In semantic modelling (conceptual graphs), these inconsistencies are verified using constraints. In this work, collaborative processes are represented using an argumentation system modelled in a conceptual graph formalism where inconsistencies could be particular bad attack relation between arguments. To overcome these inconsistencies, two solutions are proposed. The first one is to weight the arguments evolving in the argumentation system on the basis of the competencies of the health professionals and the credibility of the sources justifying their advice (arguments), and the second one is to model some law concepts as constraints in order to check their compliance of the collaborative process.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.future.2017.09.081