KNOWLEDGE FOR ARGUMENTATION IN COMPARISON OF SPATIAL SITUATIONS

Abstract

The traditionally used way to assess the quality of the solution proposed by an intelligent
system is to explain the course of logical inference. Knowledge about reasoning is used to argue
the choice of a solution option. The sequence of applied rules, the facts used and the confirmed
hypotheses are considered arguments that should convince the user of the validity of the formed
conclusion. The disadvantage of this method of explanation is that it reflects a formally correct,
but devoid of semantic content, course of reasoning. The argumentation of the solution obtained is
based on the tracing protocol, which is essentially no different from debugging information when
tracing programs. The argumentation in this case is far from the meaning of the situation. The
meaning is understood as a given set of transformations of the situation that preserve the immutability
of its perception by a human analyst. Knowledge about the semantic content of situations
should be presented in a special fashion. In this paper, we consider a representation containing a
precent and its permissible transformations. In this form, spatial situations in geoinformation systems
are described. For argumentation, it is proposed to use special relations between images of
situations. The concept of the area of applicability of the image is introduced. The mutual arrangement of the spatial-temporal and semantic shell of images and the areas of their applicability
is considered as a carrier of the relationship. Information about relationships is extracted from the
structure of the cartographic database. The relations of inheritance, aggregation, composition,
generalization and association of classes of objects are considered. Knowledge for argumentation
is provided by the rules for determining the reliability index of expert conclusion for individual
relationships and their combinations. A method of automatic rule generation is proposed.
The relations for comparison of levels of reliability of rules are given.