Skip Navigation


Logic Journal of IGPL Advance Access originally published online on January 6, 2009
Logic Journal of IGPL 2009 17(1):55-76; doi:10.1093/jigpal/jzn026
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
17/1/55    most recent
jzn026v1
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Mahalakshmi, G.S.
Right arrow Articles by Geetha, T.V.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© The Author 2009. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oxfordjournals.org

An Indian logic-based argument representation formalism for knowledge-sharing1

G.S. Mahalakshmi and T.V. Geetha

Department of Computer Science & Engineering, Anna University, Chennai-25, Tamilnadu, India
E-mail: mahalakshmi{at}cs.annauniv.edu; tvgeedir{at}cs.annauniv.edu


   Abstract

Knowledge-sharing is the fundamental aspect of learning from ancient days. By exchanging questions and answers in a debate fashion, knowledge is explored. Argumentation can be thought of as a knowledge-sharing mechanism where construction of arguments and counter-arguments towards reaching mutually agreed upon conclusions is modelled after the rational discussion of knowledge-sharing. The procedural approach of generation and exchange of arguments is with the intention of reaching a definite conclusion at the end of discussion irrespective of the winning or losing of the individual arguments. A procedural argumentation system for knowledge-sharing, similar to the one discussed above will be of immense use only when the representational facts of world knowledge are well captured and represented as identical with the representation of natural intelligence. Indian Philosophy suggests various rules for classifying and representing the world knowledge to enhance the procedure of argumentation in reaching new inferences. This paper discusses a new mathematical model that caters to the special requirements of classification and hypothetical argumentative reasoning (tarka) of Indian philosophy. The main focus is the emphasis given to the existence of relations between concepts and foundation of invariable connection between concepts/relations of the arguments that is indicated by the philosophy. The extracted knowledge from the arguments exchanged is captured using ‘Indianised logics’, an Indian Logic based argument representation formalism. The arguments are deeply analysed for the presence of conceptual and relational conflicts. This is achieved by referring to the presence and/or absence of invariable concomitance, so that, the decision of justifying the represented invalid knowledge with or without proof shall be made clear in knowledge-sharing through rational discussion.

Key Words: Mathematical model • Knowledge representation • Procedural argumentation • Logic • Indian philosophy • Knowledge-sharing and Argument

Received for publication 27 April 2006.


1This work is an extended version of the paper titled ‘A Mathematical Model for Argument Procedures based on Indian Philosophy’, Proc. of International Conf. on Artificial Intelligence & Applications (AIA’06) as part of 24thIASTED International Multi-conference on Applied Informatics (AI’06), Innsbruck, Austria, February 13–16, 2006.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?




Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.