Resolving Conflicting Arguments under Uncertainties
  Distributed knowledge based applications in open domain rely on common sense
information which is bound to be uncertain and incomplete. To draw the useful
conclusions from ambiguous data, one must address uncertainties and conflicts
incurred in a holistic view. No integrated frameworks are viable without an
in-depth analysis of conflicts incurred by uncertainties. In this paper, we
give such an analysis and based on the result, propose an integrated framework.
Our framework extends definite argumentation theory to model uncertainty. It
supports three views over conflicting and uncertain knowledge. Thus, knowledge
engineers can draw different conclusions depending on the application context
(i.e. view). We also give an illustrative example on strategical decision
support to show the practical usefulness of our framework.
