This chapter aims at comparing and relating belief
revision and argumentation as approaches to model reasoning processes.
Referring to some prominent literature references in both fields, we will
discuss their (implicit or explicit) assumptions on the modeled processes and
hence commonalities and differences in the forms of reasoning they are suitable
to deal with. The intended contribution is on one hand assessing the (not fully
explored yet) relationships between two lively research fields in the broad area
of defeasible reasoning and on the other hand pointing out open issues and
potential directions for future research.