P. Soient and . Ar, attacks, pref un système d'argumentationàargumentationà base de préférences , P, Q ? AR deux arguments, Q)) ssi on a attacks(P, Q) ? ¬ pref (Q, P )

P. Soient and . Ar, attacks, pref un système d'argumentationàargumentationà base de préférences , S ? AR un ensemble d'arguments et P, Q ? AR deux arguments

U. Coup-dialogique-move-k and ?. Ml-?-est-défini-par-un-triplet-move-k-=-m-k, P k o` u : ? M k = message(move k ) est un message conformè a la définition 8.2.2.I

?. and =. Reply, move k ) est l'identifiant du coup auquel celui-ci répond

U. Coup, move k ) est soit un coup d'initialisation (reply(move k ) = ?) soit un coup de réponse (reply(move k ) = ?). L'acte de langage d'un coup de réponse faitéchòfaitéchò a l'un des actes précédemmentprécédemmentémis. Les protocoles seront abordés dans la section 9

. Troisì-eme-partie-application, Now is the time to shift our view of computers from communications medium to negotiation medium, from knowledge processing to interest processing, Carl Adam Petri Chapitre, vol.11

L. Amgoud and C. Cayrol, On the acceptability of arguments in preferencebased argumentation framework, Proc. of 14th Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence, pp.1-7, 1998.

L. Amgoud and C. Cayrol, A reasoning model based on the production of acceptable arguments, Annals of Maths and AI, vol.34, issue.116, pp.197-215, 2002.

L. Amgoud, N. Maudet, and S. Parsons, Modelling dialogues using argumentation, Proceedings Fourth International Conference on MultiAgent Systems, pp.31-38, 2000.
DOI : 10.1109/ICMAS.2000.858428

L. Amgoud, N. Maudet, and S. Parsons, An argumentation-based semantics for agent communication languages, Proc. of the 15th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp.38-42, 2002.

L. Amgoud and S. Parsons, Agent Dialogues with Conflicting Preferences
DOI : 10.1007/3-540-45448-9_14

J. Austin, How to do things with words ?, p.12, 1962.
DOI : 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198245537.001.0001

F. Tc-b, Fipa acl message representation in xml specification . Component, Foundation for Intelligent Physical Agents, pp.6-12, 2002.

F. Tc-b, Fipa acl message structure specification. Component, Foundation for Intelligent Physical Agents, pp.6-12, 2002.

T. J. Bench-capon, Persuasion in Practical Argument Using Value-based Argumentation Frameworks, Journal of Logic and Computation, vol.13, issue.3, pp.429-448, 2003.
DOI : 10.1093/logcom/13.3.429

J. Bentahar, B. Moulin, and B. Chaib-draa, Towards a formal framework for conversational agents, Proc. of the workshop on " Agent Communication Languages and Conversation Policies AAMAS, juillet 2003, p.111

P. Breiter, La communication orale coopérative : contributionàcontributionà la modélisation etàetà la mise en oeuvre d'un agent rationnel dialoguant, p.18, 1992.

F. Tc-c, Fipa acl communicative act library specification

F. Tc-c, Fipa interaction protocol library specification. Component , Foundation for Intelligent Physical Agents, 2-10, p.20, 2003.

C. Perelman and L. Olbrechts-tyteca, Traité de l'Argumentation -La Nouvelle Rhétorique, p.141, 1958.

C. Castelfranchi and R. Falcone, Principles of trust for MAS: cognitive anatomy, social importance, and quantification, Proceedings International Conference on Multi Agent Systems (Cat. No.98EX160), pp.72-79, 1998.
DOI : 10.1109/ICMAS.1998.699034

B. Chaib-draa and F. Dignum, Trends in Agent Communication Language, Computational Intelligence, vol.18, issue.2, pp.89-101, 2002.
DOI : 10.1111/1467-8640.00184

G. Desbordes, Un cadre d'interactions d'agents logiciels basé sur l'argumentation . Master of science, Faculté desétudesdesétudes supérieures de l, p.32, 2001.

F. Dignum, B. Dunin-keplicz, and R. Verbrugge, Dialogue in Team Formation, Issues in Agent Communication, pp.264-280, 2000.
DOI : 10.1007/10722777_18

F. Dignum, B. Dunin-keplicz, and R. Verbrugge, Agent Theory for Team Formation by Dialogue, Agent Theories Architectures and Languages, number LNAI 1986 in Intelligent Agents VII, pp.150-166, 2001.
DOI : 10.1007/3-540-44631-1_11

D. Phan-minh, On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games, Artif. Intell, vol.77, issue.55, pp.321-357, 1995.

P. Faratin, Automated Service Negotiation Between Autonomous Computational Agents, p.24, 2000.

T. F. Gordon and N. Karacapilidis, The Zeno argumentation framework, Proceedings of the sixth international conference on Artificial intelligence and law , ICAIL '97, pp.10-18, 1997.
DOI : 10.1145/261618.261622

F. Thomas and . Gordon, Computational dialectics. Computers as Assistants -A New Generation of Support Systems, pp.186-203, 1996.

F. Thomas, O. Gordon, and . Marker, Mediation systems, 15th International Symposium Informatics for Environment Protection, pp.737-742, 2001.

A. Herzig and D. Longin, Belief Dynamics in Cooperative Dialogues, Journal of Semantics, vol.17, issue.2, pp.91-118, 0146.
DOI : 10.1093/jos/17.2.91

J. Hintikka, Language-games for quantifiers Studies in Logical Theory, American Philosophical Quarterly Monograph Series, vol.2, pp.46-72, 1968.

M. Huget, J. Odell, Ø. Haugen, M. M. Nodine, S. Cranefield et al., Fipa modelling : Interaction diagrams Foundation for Intelligent Physical Agents, pp.7-9, 2003.

T. Ito and T. Shintani, Persuasion among agents : An approach to implementing a group decision support system based on multi-agent negociation, Proceedings of the 5th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI'97, p.188, 1997.

C. Antonis, P. Kakas, and . Mora¨?tismora¨?tis, Argumentative agent deliberation, roles and context, Electronic Notes in Theoretical Computer Science, pp.116-134, 2002.

N. I. Karacapilidis and D. Papadias, Computer supported argumentation and collaborative decision making: the HERMES system, Information Systems, vol.26, issue.4, pp.259-277, 2001.
DOI : 10.1016/S0306-4379(01)00020-5

K. J. Arrow, Social choice and individual values, p.188, 1963.

J. Koning, Algorithms for translating interaction protocols into a formal description, IEEE SMC'99 Conference Proceedings. 1999 IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics (Cat. No.99CH37028), pp.810-815, 1999.
DOI : 10.1109/ICSMC.1999.823332

J. Koning, G. Francois, and Y. Demazeau, Formalization and prevalidation for interaction protocols in a multi agent systems, Proc. of the 13th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp.298-307, 1998.

M. Labrie, B. Chaib-draa, and N. Maudet, DIAGAL: A Tool for Analyzing and Modelling Commitment-Based Dialogues between Agents, Proc. of the 16th Canadian Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 2671 of LNAI, pp.353-369, 2003.
DOI : 10.1017/S0269888902000486

P. Lorenzen and K. Lorenz, Dialogische Logik, p.65, 1978.

N. Maudet, Modéliser les conventions des interactionslangagì eres : la contribution des jeux de dialogues, p.85, 2001.

N. Maudet and B. Chaib-draa, Commitment-based and dialoguegame based protocols?news trends in agent communication language, Knowledge Engineering, vol.17, issue.2, pp.157-179, 2002.

P. Mcburney and S. Parsons, Intelligent systems to support deliberative democracy in environmental regulation. Information and Communications Technology Law, pp.33-43, 2001.

P. Mora¨?tismora¨?tis, Un modèle de raisonnement pour agents autonomes fondé sur l'argumentation, Proc. Journées Nationales de Modèles de Raisonnement (JNMR'03), p.134, 2003.

. John-von-neumann-oskar-morgenstern, The Theory of Games and Economic Behavior, p.186, 1944.

C. H. Papadimitriou, Computational complexity, p.245, 1993.

S. Parsons, C. Sierra, and N. R. Jennings, Agents that reason and negotiate by arguing, Journal of Logic and Computation, vol.8, issue.3, pp.261-292, 1998.
DOI : 10.1093/logcom/8.3.261

S. Parsons, M. Wooldridge, and L. Amgoud, An analysis of formal inter-agent dialogues, Proceedings of the first international joint conference on Autonomous agents and multiagent systems part 1, AAMAS '02, pp.394-401, 2002.
DOI : 10.1145/544741.544835

P. Pasquier, M. Bergeron, and B. Chaib-draa, DIAGAL: A Generic ACL for Open Systems, Proc. of the 5th International workshop of Engineering Societies in the Agent World, pp.117-122, 2004.
DOI : 10.1007/11423355_11

P. Pasquier and B. Chaib-draa, Engagements, intentions et jeux de dialogue, Actes des Secondes Journées Francophones Modèles Formels de l'Interaction, pp.289-294, 2003.

H. Prakken, On Dialogue Systems with Speech Acts, Arguments, and Counterarguments, Proc. of the 7th European Workshop on Logic for Artificial Intelligence (JELIA'2000), number 1919 in Lecture Notes in AI, pp.224-238, 2000.
DOI : 10.1007/3-540-40006-0_16

H. Prakken, Relating protocols for dynamic dispute with logics for defeasible argumentation. special issue on New Perspectives in Dialogical Logic, Synthese, vol.127, issue.1/2, pp.187-219, 2001.
DOI : 10.1023/A:1010322504453

M. Schroeder and R. Schweimeier, Notions of attack and justified arguments for extended logic programs, Proc. of the 15th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence (ECAI02), pp.536-540, 2002.

C. A. Reed, Dialogue frames in agent communication, Proceedings International Conference on Multi Agent Systems (Cat. No.98EX160), pp.246-253, 1998.
DOI : 10.1109/ICMAS.1998.699056

H. W. Rittel and M. M. Webber, Dilemmas in a general theory of planning, Policy Sciences, vol.4, issue.2, pp.155-169, 1973.
DOI : 10.1007/BF01405730

L. Thomas and . Saaty, Decision Making for Leaders ; the Analytical Hierarchy Process for Decisions in a Complex World, p.189, 1982.

L. Thomas and . Saaty, The Fundamentals of Decision Making and Priority Theory with the Analytic Hierarchy Process, volume Vol VI of AHP Series, p.189, 1996.

T. Sandholm, Multiagent Systems, chapter Distributed Rational Decision Making, p.187, 1999.

S. E. Toulmin, The Uses of Argument, pp.31-57, 1958.
DOI : 10.1017/CBO9780511840005

J. R. Searle, Speech Acts : An Essay in the Philosophy of Language, p.12, 1969.
DOI : 10.1017/CBO9781139173438

A. El and F. Seghrouchni, Coordination d'agents : Modèles, Algorithmes et Protocoles. Memoire d'habilitation a diriger des recherches, p.25, 2000.

C. Shannon, A mathematical theory of communication, Bell System Technical Journal, issue.9, 1948.

R. G. Smith, The Contract Net Protocol: High-Level Communication and Control in a Distributed Problem Solver, IEEE Transactions on Computers, vol.29, issue.12, pp.1104-1113, 1980.
DOI : 10.1109/TC.1980.1675516

A. V. Aho and J. D. Ullman, The Theory of Parsing, Translation, and Compiling, p.22, 1972.

D. Vanderveken, Analyse et Simulation de Conversations De la théorie des actes du discours aux systèmes multiagents, chapter 2 : La structure logique des dialogues intelligents, L'Interdisciplinaire, pp.61-100, 1999.

D. Vanderveken and J. R. Searle, Foundations of Illocutionary Logic, 1985.

J. Von, N. , and O. Morgenstern, Theory of Games and Economic Behavior, p.99, 1944.

G. Vreeswijk and H. Prakken, Credulous and Sceptical Argument Games for Preferred Semantics, Proc. of the 7th European Workshop on Logic for Artificial Intelligence (JELIA'2000), number 1919 in Lecture Notes in AI, pp.239-253
DOI : 10.1007/3-540-40006-0_17

D. Walton and E. Krabbe, Commitment in Dialogue, p.215, 1995.

L. Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus, 1933.

A. Introduction and .. , 229 A.2 Syntaxe, p.230

. Dans-ce-chapitre, nous commencerons par définir les symboles et les r` egles de formation des formules (cf section A.2), que cela soit des formules de la logique des propositions (cf section A.2.1) ou des formules de la logique du premier ordre (cf section A.2.2), Nous aborderons ensuite la sémantique de ces logiques (cf section A.5. SYNTH`ESESYNTH` SYNTH`ESE 237

?. Ce-système-de-preuve-est, ?. Skc-?-alors, and . |=, Il est complet : si ? |= ? alors ? ? SKC ?. Il estégalementestégalement décidable : il existe un algorithme qui, ´ etant donné ? un ensemble fini de formules et une formule ?

U. Pré-ordre, un ordre) total est un pré-ordre (respectivement un ordre) dans lequel lesélémentsleséléments sont toujours comparables

. La-redondance-d, information dans les affirmations d'une même ligne persuasive est interdite et par conséquence la présence de boucles dans un dialogue aussi. En outre, la théorie personnellé etendue T * part est finie parce que les théories personnelles des joueurs (T part et T init ) sont finies et donc le tableau d'engagement CS part init, Par conséquence, la récursion est finie et donc le dialogue se termine après un nombre fini de coups

D. ?. Soit, H. Witness, T. , and Z. , u p ) p?N un système dialectique qui porte sur le thème r 0 et qui emploie un protocole de demande d'informationàformationà réponses uniques. Si la situation initiale est telle que : ? l'initiateur ne dispose initialement d'aucun

D. Part, on vérifie que la demande d'information est correcte. L'initiateur ainsi que le témoin sont