A. Analyti and S. Pramanik. Reliable Semantics for Extended Logic Programs with Rule Prioritization. Journal of Logic and Computation, pages 303--324, 1995.  Home/Search   Document Details and Download   Summary   Related Articles   Check

....answer sets of an ELP from the collection of all answer sets. They fail, however, to satisfy the principles for this selection process which have been proposed in [35] Further semantics for priorities in extended logic programming, which are not based on answer sets, have been proposed in [122, 15, 33, 126]. They have quite different foundations such as logical entrenchment and specificity [122] reliability handling [15] well founded semantics [33] or defeasible argumentation [126] In [125] it is shown how priorities can be used to combine different potentially conflicting Datalog databases. ....

.... process which have been proposed in [35] Further semantics for priorities in extended logic programming, which are not based on answer sets, have been proposed in [122, 15, 33, 126] They have quite different foundations such as logical entrenchment and specificity [122] reliability handling [15], well founded semantics [33] or defeasible argumentation [126] In [125] it is shown how priorities can be used to combine different potentially conflicting Datalog databases. Preferences are used to determine information which is given up in the merging process. Three different semantics of ....

A. Analyti and S. Pramanik. Reliable Semantics for Extended Logic Programs with Rule Prioritization. Journal of Logic and Computation, pages 303--324, 1995.

....to reduce non determinism which arises in disjunctive logic programs. From the complexity viewpoint, DOL and DLP are at the same complexity level as disjunctive logic programming, which is in contrast to PLP. 5.1. 7 Others Priority: Priorities are defined over (conflicting) default rules [1,13,24,21] and (sets of) atoms [45] 25] uses priorities with preconditions. Language: Extended logic programs [1,13,24,21] and Datalog with integrity constraints [45] which are all strict subclasses of GEDPs. 25] considers constraint (definite) logic programs. Commonsense reasoning: Analyti and ....

....DLP are at the same complexity level as disjunctive logic programming, which is in contrast to PLP. 5.1.7 Others Priority: Priorities are defined over (conflicting) default rules [1,13,24,21] and (sets of) atoms [45] 25] uses priorities with preconditions. Language: Extended logic programs [1,13,24,21] and Datalog with integrity constraints [45] which are all strict subclasses of GEDPs. 25] considers constraint (definite) logic programs. Commonsense reasoning: Analyti and Pramanik [1] introduce priorities to resolve contradiction in a program. Dimopoulos and Kakas [13] replace NAF by ....

[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]

A. Analyti and S. Pramanik, Reliable semantics for extended logic programs with rule prioritization, Journal of Logic and Computation 5(3)(1995) 303--324.

....compare our work with a proposal by Delgrande and Schaub in which prioritized default theories are compiled to standard default theories [17] Analyti and Pramanik. Yet another semantics for extended logic programs, called reliable semantics (RS) has been proposed by Analyti and Pramanik in [2]. Their approach is based upon and generalizes the well founded semantics of extended logic programs. The set of consequences is given by its reliable model, which is computable as the least fixpoint of a monotonic operator. RS was developed to obtain meaningful consequences from programs that ....

A. Analyti and S. Pramanik. Reliable semantics for extended logic programs with rule prioritization. Journal of Logic and Computation, pp. 303--324, 1995.

....by saying that it determines sets of assumptions with which a program or theory can be given a noncontradictory interpretation. If no such set exists, the program is in some sense incoherent. Our system, however, is also meant to be used in adversarial contexts, where coherency is rare. Also [Analyti Pramanik 95] deviate from well founded semantics, for similar reasons as we do. Although their system is not argument based, it has two kinds of negations and prioritized rules, but not reasoning about priorities. It would be interesting to study the relation between [Analyti Pramanik 95] and the special ....

....is rare. Also [Analyti Pramanik 95] deviate from well founded semantics, for similar reasons as we do. Although their system is not argument based, it has two kinds of negations and prioritized rules, but not reasoning about priorities. It would be interesting to study the relation between [Analyti Pramanik 95] and the special case of our framework with fixed priorities. Brewka 95] defines an extension of [Perreira Alferes 92] s well founded semantics to programs with defeasible priorities. Since Brewka defines a conservative extension of this semantics, he inherits its features described above. ....

A. Analyti and S. Pramanik. Reliable semantics for extended logic programs with rule prioritization. Journal of Logic and Computation 5 (1995), 303--324.

....If L is a d well founded conclusion of Gamma, then L is a justified conclusion on the basis of ( Gamma; The converse does not hold. This can be shown with an example that in our view reveals a flaw of [Dung 93b] s and [BS 91] s well founded semantics (similar observations have been made by [AP 95] and [BRE 96] Example 9.6 Consider a program with the following rules. r 1 : a r 2 : a r 3 : b b is a justified conclusion of this program. However, it has only one d argument, viz. which is self defeating. And, as explained above, this means that the set of d well founded ....

....extension. d 1 : a d 2 : a Note that we cannot translate r 1 and r 2 into the two defaults : a=a and : a= a, since those defaults are the translations of :a ) a and a ) a. Next we focus on some logic programming like systems for defeasible reasoning. One such system is [AP 95] who revise well founded semantics for similar reasons as we discussed in Section 9.1. Although their system is not argumentbased, it has two kinds of negations and prioritized rules, but not reasoning about priorities. It would be interesting to study the relation between [AP 95] and the ....

[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]

A. Analyti and S. Pramanik. Reliable semantics for extended logic programs with rule prioritization. Journal of Logic and Computation 5 (1995), 303--324.

....set of assumptions of what we define as an argument. For instance, in his terms the program r 1 : a, r 2 : b, r 3 : a, has only one argument, viz. which defeats itself: so F 1 = F 0 = We, by contrast, have that F 1 = f[r 3 ]g and F 2 = F 1 , which seems more natural. Also [1] deviate from well founded semantics, for similar reasons. Although their system is not argument based, it has two kinds of negations and prioritized rules, but not reasoning about priorities. It would be interesting to study the relation between [1] and the special case of our framework with ....

....F 2 = F 1 , which seems more natural. Also [1] deviate from well founded semantics, for similar reasons. Although their system is not argument based, it has two kinds of negations and prioritized rules, but not reasoning about priorities. It would be interesting to study the relation between [1] and the special case of our framework with fixed priorities. In [4] Brewka has defined an extension of [12] s well founded semantics to programs with defeasible priorities. Since Brewka defines a conservative extension of this semantics, he inherits its features. Another difference with our ....

A. Analyti and S. Pramanik, Reliable semantics for extended logic programs with rule prioritization. Journal of Logic and Computation 5 (1995), 303--324.

....objects that cannot have an a value. is actually needed here is non monotonic inheritance, i.e. a form of inheritance that allows new declarations to override previously derived information. We mention that several approaches to non monotonic inheritance have been proposed in the literature [7, 18, 33, 1, 23, 3] 12 . Clearly, both forms of inheritance are needed, as the appropriate form depends on the particular case. For example, i) let class Only car factory have a property produces with value domain Car, ii) let class Only boat factory have a property produces with value domain Boat, and (iii) ....

....of objects. In addition, we investigate inheritance from classes to instances through class membership (called, instance inheritance) Though instance inheritance from classes to tokens presents no particular problem, instance inheritance from meta classes to classes is not a trivial matter. 12 [18, 33, 3] do not present an object oriented framework. However, they consider partial ordering of declarations which can express defaults and exceptions in specialization hierarchies. ....

A. Analyti, S. Pramanik, Reliable Semantics for Extended Logic Programs with Rule Prioritization, Journal of Logic and Computation, 5(3), 303-324 (1995).

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