咨询与建议

看过本文的还看了

相关文献

该作者的其他文献

文献详情 >An argumentation system for ec... 收藏

An argumentation system for eco-efficient packaging material selection

为 eco 有效的包装材料选择的一个推论系统

作     者:Tamani, Nouredine Mosse, Patricio Croitoru, Madalina Buche, Patrice Guillard, Valerie Guillaume, Carole Gontard, Nathalie 

作者机构:INRIA GraphiK LIRMM F-34095 Montpellier 5 France UM2 INRA UMR IATE Montpellier France 

出 版 物:《COMPUTERS AND ELECTRONICS IN AGRICULTURE》 (农用计算机与电子设备)

年 卷 期:2015年第113卷

页      面:174-192页

核心收录:

学科分类:09[农学] 0901[农学-作物学] 0812[工学-计算机科学与技术(可授工学、理学学位)] 

基  金:European Community [FP7-265669-EcoBioCAP] 

主  题:Logic-based argumentation Argumentation tool Decision Support System Food packaging 

摘      要:Within 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. (C) 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

读者评论 与其他读者分享你的观点

用户名:未登录
我的评分