The connection between inconsistent databases and Dung's abstract argumentation framework has recently drawn growing interest. Specifically, an inconsistent database, involving certain types of integrity constraints such as functional and inclusion dependencies, can be viewed as an argumentation framework in Dung's setting. Nevertheless, no prior work has explored the exact expressive power of Dung's theory of argumentation when compared to inconsistent databases and integrity constraints. In this paper, we close this gap by arguing that an argumentation framework can also be viewed as an inconsistent database. We first establish a connection between subset-repairs for databases and extensions for AFs, considering conflict-free, naive, admissible, and preferred semantics. Further, we define a new family of attribute-based repairs based on the principle of maximal content preservation. The effectiveness of these repairs is then highlighted by connecting them to stable, semi-stable, and stage semantics. Our main contributions include translating an argumentation framework into a database together with integrity constraints. Moreover, this translation can be achieved in polynomial time, which is essential in transferring complexity results between the two formalisms.

翻译：不一致数据库与邓氏抽象论辩框架之间的关联近来日益受到关注。具体而言，涉及函数依赖与包含依赖等特定类型完整性约束的不一致数据库，可被视作邓氏框架下的论辩系统。然而，现有研究尚未系统探讨邓氏论辩理论相较于不一致数据库及完整性约束的确切表达能力。本文通过论证论辩框架同样可被解读为不一致数据库，填补了这一研究空白。我们首先在数据库的子集修复与论辩框架的扩展集之间建立关联，涵盖无冲突、朴素、可采纳及优选语义。进一步地，基于内容最大化保持原则，我们定义了一类新型的基于属性的修复机制，并通过将其与稳定、半稳定及阶段语义相关联，凸显了这些修复机制的有效性。本研究的主要贡献包括：将论辩框架转化为携带完整性约束的数据库，且该转化过程可在多项式时间内完成，这对于在两个形式化体系间传递复杂性结论具有重要意义。