Katsuno, H., and Mendelzon, A. O. 1992. On the difference between updating a knowledge base and revising it. In Gardenfors, P., ed., Belief revision. Cambridge University Press. 183--203.  Home/Search   Document Details and Download   Summary   Related Articles   Check

....set of requirements compatible with some constraints and regulations, can be seen as an iterated process of requirements revision. There have been many other developments of belief revision theory including iterated belief revision [DP97, Leh95] and relating belief revision to database updating [KM92] These also offer intuitive abstract constraints for revision updating. For a review of belief revision theory see [DP98] There are some more concrete proposals for knowledgebase merging that adhere to belief revision postulates. In Konieczny and Pino Perez [KP98] there is a proposal for ....

H Katsuno and A Mendelzon. On the difference between updating a knowledgebase and revising it. Belief Revision, pages 183--203, 1992.

....As we will see, this fact does not invalidate our argument; and we simply assume that such inaccuracies are corrected in the course of the development. However, if we decide to treat requirements model Ri as a logical theory, we can then follow the distinctions made in the theory change literature [12] between revising and updating a body of knowledge. The former is used when we are obtaining new information about a static word where newer results may contradict the old ones while the latter consists of bringing the information up to date when the world described by it changes (i.e. a ....

Katsuno H., and Mendelzon, A.O., "On the difference between updating a knowledge base and revising it", Proceedings of the 2 d International Con- ference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning, (1991).

....is the dual notion of revision, in which beliefs are retracted but no new beliefs are added. Postulates governing a contraction function are similarly given. The intuition underlying revision and contraction is that an agent receives new information concerning a static world or domain. [19] explores the distinct notions of belief update and erasure in which an agent changes its beliefs in response to changes in its external environment. As well, belief set merging (or arbitration) in which the contents of two belief sets are combined, is addressed in [23] There has also been ....

H. Katsuno and A. Mendelzon. On the Difference between Updating a Knowledge Base and Revising it. In P. Gardenfors, editor, Belief Revision, pages 183--203. Cambridge University Press, 1992.

....a partial pre order between rules. In such cases, an epistemic state has to be represented by a partial pre order on interpretations and revision operations of partial pre orders by formulas have to be defined. Partial pre orders on interpretations have been used to represent update operations [12], this paper does not address updates but revisions. In the present paper, we propose a generalization of two revision operators to the case of partial pre orders. Section 2 presents the problematics of the representation of epistemic states by a partial pre order and focuses on the difficulties ....

H. Katsuno and A. Mendelzon. On the difference between updating a knowledge base and revising it. In Proc. of the 2nd inter. Conf. on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning, pages 387-394, 1991.

....admits the specification of flex ible evolutions of such DAG organized logic programs, by allowing not just the specification of the logic programs representing each state, but to the evolution of the DAG topology itself as well. 1 Introduction Inspired by the earlier work on program updates [14, 21, 23, 26], 1] introduces the paradigm of Dynamic Logic Programming (DLP) According to DLP, knowledge is given by a linearly ordered sequence of theories (each encoded as a generalized logic program, i.e. one where default negation may appear both in rule bodies and heads) that represent distinct and ....

H. Katsuno and A. Mendelzon. On the difference between updating a knowledge base and revising it. In Procs. of KR-91. Morgan Kaufmann, 1991.

....admits the specification of flex ible evolutions of such DAG organized logic programs, by allowing not just the specification of the logic programs representing each state, but to the evolution of the DAG topology itself as well. I Introduction Inspired by the earlier work on program updates [14, 20, 22, 25], 1] introduces the paradigm of Dynamic Logic Programming (DLP) According to DLP, knowledge is given by a linearly ordered sequence of theories (each encoded as a generalized logic program, i.e. one where default negation may appear both in rule bodies and heads) that represent distinct and ....

H. Katsuno and A. Mendelzon. On the difference between updating a knowledge base and revising it. In Procs. of KR-91. Morgan Kaufmann, 1991.

....for Theory Change. I will briefly sketch this. Consider a set of beliefs or a knowledge set T . As our perception of the world as described by T changes, the knowledge set may have to be modified. In the literature on theory change a number 5 of such modifications have been identified [1, 24], including expansions, contractions and revisions. If we acquire information that does not contradict T , we can simply expand our knowledge set with this piece of information. When a sentence OE previously believed becomes questionable and has to be abandoned, we contract our knowledge with OE. ....

H. Katsuno and A.O. Mendelzon. On the difference between updating a knowledge base and revising it. In J.A. Allen, R. Fikes and E. Sandewall, eds., Princ. of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning: Proc. 2nd Intern. Conf., pages 387--394. Morgan Kaufman, 1991.

....into defeasible and non defeasible formulae, then the only defeasible formulae are the rules the Agent started with (this is the standard case of the AGM approach) Another case is that in which the sensors are reliable but the world can change. In this case (whose study was initiated by [11]) all formulae are defeasible except the last piece of information. When the sensors are not reliable some kind of preferential model is necessary. In these models, the (possibly contradictory) evidences coming from different sensors are weighted against a (pre loaded or incrementally built) ....

Katsuno, H. and Mendelzon, A.O. (1992): On the Difference between updating a Knowledge Base and revising it, in G ardenfors, P. (ed.), Belief Revision, Cambridge University Press.

....cannot be a belief update operator in the sense of Katsuno and Mendelzon; then, we show how to integrate update and extrapolation. Lastly, closely related lines of work are positioned with respect to belief extrapolation. 1 INTRODUCTION The distinction between belief revision and update [12] is usually thought of this way: revision incorporates newly acquired beliefs about a static world while update modifies beliefs according to a change in the system, notified by an input formula . However, there is some ambiguity in the exact nature of the input formula . What does a ....

....an observation ff = Sigma(2) at time 2, compute a completed belief set at time 2. This may look similar to belief update, however 2 extrapolation is not belief update. This is clear from point 1 of Proposition 8 (or from E5) it is known that the AGM postulates are inconsistent with postulate U8 [12] as soon as the language contains at least two propositional symbols Proposition 11 Assume that the language contains at least two propositional symbols. Let N = 2, l a 2extrapolation operator, and the induced belief change operator as in Section 4. Then cannot satisfy U8. Therefore, no ....

H. Katsuno and A.O. Mendelzon. On the difference between updating a knowledge base and revising it. In Proc. of KR'91, pages 387--394, 1991.

....the simplest to explain, and allows for expressing scenarios in which knowledge at later time may rule out some initial models. The second one is based on the principle of pointwiseness : each initial model should be updated separately (this is one of the basic principles of update according to Katsuno and Mendelzon [ 1991 ] Backward Semantics. This is the simplest one. We define the ordering OE between dynamic models from the arrays of preference, as we did for static models. Then, the models of a knowledge base are just defined as the minimal dynamic models. mod(KB) min(fDMg; OE) Pointwise Semantics. This ....

H. Katsuno and A. O. Mendelzon. On the difference between updating a knowledge base and revising it. In Proc. of KR'91, pages 387--394, 1991.

No context found.

Katsuno, H., and Mendelzon, A. O. 1992. On the difference between updating a knowledge base and revising it. In Gardenfors, P., ed., Belief revision. Cambridge University Press. 183--203.

No context found.

H. Katsuno and A. Mendelzon. On the difference between updating a knowledge base and revising it. In Peter Gardenfors, editor, Belief Revision, pages 183--203. Cambridge University Press, 1992.

No context found.

H. Katsuno and A. Mendelzon. On the difference between updating a knowledge base and revising it. In P. Gardenfors, editor, Belief Revision, pages 183--203. Cambridge University Press, 1992.

No context found.

H. Katsuno and A. O. Mendelzon. On the difference between updating a knowledge base and revising it. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning, Cambridge, Apr. 1991.

No context found.

H. Katsuno and A. Mendelzon. On the difference between updating a knowledge base and revising it. In P. Gardenfors, editor, Belief Revision, pages 183--203. Cambridge University Press, 1992.

No context found.

Hirofumi Katsuno and Alberto O. Mendelzon. On the difference between updating a knowledge base and revising it. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning, Cambridge, April 1991.

No context found.

Hirofumi Katsuno and Alberto O. Mendelzon. On the difference between updating a knowledge base and revising it. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning, Cambridge, April 1991.

No context found.

Hirofumi Katsuno and Alberto O. Mendelzon. On the difference between updating a knowledge base and revising it. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning, Cambridge, April 1991.

No context found.

H. Katsuno and A. Mendelzon. On the difference between updating a knowledge base and revising it. In P. G ardenfors, editor, Belief Revision, pages 183--203. Cambridge University Press, 1992.

No context found.

Hirofumi Katsuno and Alberto O. Mendelzon. On the difference between updating a knowledge base and revising it. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning, Cambridge, April 1991. 27

No context found.

H. Katsuno and A. O. Mendelzon. On the difference between updating a knowledge base and revising it. In P. Gardenfors, editor, Belief Revision, pages 183--203. CUP, 1992.

No context found.

Katsuno and A.O. Mendelzon, `On the difference between updating a knowledge base and revising it', in Allen J., Fikes R. and Sandewall E. (eds.), Proc. 2nd Inter. Conf. on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning, (Morgan Kaufmann 1991) 387-394.

No context found.

H Katsuno and A Mendelzon. On the difference between updating a knowledgebase and revising it. In Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning: Proceedings of the Second International Conference (KR'91), pages 387--394. Morgan Kaufmann, 1991.

No context found.

H Katsuno and A Mendelzon. On the difference between updating a knowledgebase and revising it. In Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning: Proceedings of the Second International Conference (KR'91), pages 387--394. Morgan Kaufmann, 1991.

No context found.

H Katsuno and A Mendelzon. On the difference between updating a knowledgebase and revising it. In Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning: Proceedings of the Second International Conference (KR'91), pages 387--394. Morgan Kaufmann, 1991.

First 50 documents  Next 50

Online articles have much greater impact   More about CiteSeer.IST   Add search form to your site   Submit documents   Feedback  

CiteSeer.IST - Copyright Penn State and NEC