Thats a unique idea.You should consider the following idea to enhance your idea so that it would impact uniquely: The area of inconsistent ontological knowledge base query ansr- ing studies the problem of inferring from an inconsistent ontology. To deal with such a situation, different semantics have been defined in the literature (e.g. AR, IAR, ICR). Argumentation theory can also be used to draw conclusions under inconsistency. Given a set of arguments and attacks beten them, one applies a particular semantics (e.g. stable, preferred, grounded) to calculate the sets of accepted arguments and conclusions. Hover, it is not clear what are the similar- ities and differences of semantics from ontological knowledge base query ansr- ing and semantics from argumentation theory.  provides the ansr to that question. Namely,  prove that: (1) sceptical acceptance under stable and preferred semantics corresponds to ICR semantics; (2) universal acceptance un- der stable and preferred semantics corresponds to AR semantics; (3) acceptance under grounded semantics corresponds to IAR semantics.  also prove that the argumentation framework  define satisfies the rationality postulates (e.g. con- sistency, closure).
['Madalina Croitoru', 'Srdjan Vesic']
I am writing a research paper on a idea What Can Argumentation Do for Inconsistent Ontology Query Answering
[{"from": "human", "value": "I am writing a research paper on a idea What Can Argumentation Do for Inconsistent Ontology Query Answering"}, {"from": "gpt", "value": "Thats a unique idea.You should consider the following idea to enhance your idea so that it would impact uniquely: The area of inconsistent ontological knowledge base query ansr- ing studies the problem of inferring from an inconsistent ontology. To deal with such a situation, different semantics have been defined in the literature (e.g. AR, IAR, ICR). Argumentation theory can also be used to draw conclusions under inconsistency. Given a set of arguments and attacks beten them, one applies a particular semantics (e.g. stable, preferred, grounded) to calculate the sets of accepted arguments and conclusions. Hover, it is not clear what are the similar- ities and differences of semantics from ontological knowledge base query ansr- ing and semantics from argumentation theory.  provides the ansr to that question. Namely,  prove that: (1) sceptical acceptance under stable and preferred semantics corresponds to ICR semantics; (2) universal acceptance un- der stable and preferred semantics corresponds to AR semantics; (3) acceptance under grounded semantics corresponds to IAR semantics.  also prove that the argumentation framework  define satisfies the rationality postulates (e.g. con- sistency, closure)."}]