H. Prakken and G. Sartor. Argument-based logic programming with defeasible priorities. Journal of Applied Non-classical Logics, 7:25--75, 1997.  Home/Search   Document Not in Database   Summary   Related Articles   Check

....and reaching agreement. In nonmonotonic and uncertain reasoning argument systems were used to define inference systems for existing nonmonotonic logics (e.g. 10] or to define a nonstandard (most often nonmonotonic) consequence relation for a particular logic based on some notion of argument [24, 25, 9, 15, 5, 7, 1, 27]. Although these papers differ in technical detail and the underlying formal languages all of them use notions of undercutting and defeat among arguments to define criteria for acceptability of arguments, respectively propositions supported by arguments. 28] and [6] provide excellent overviews. ....

H. Prakken and G. Sartor. Argument-based logic programming with defeasible priorities. Journal of Applied Non-classical Logics 7, pages 25--75, 1997.

....counterarguments, and therefore no defeaters. As a direct consequence of Definitions 2.26, 2.27 and 2. 28, it follows that any strict argument A for a literal Q will be a justification for Q: similar results hold for other argumentation systems, such as Vreeswijk s [Vre93] and Prakken and Sator s [PS97]. Example 2.29 Consider Example 2.9, and assume our main query is engine ok. An argument hA ; engine oki can be built, which is defeated by the argument hB; f uel oki (as shown in Examples 2.13, 2.15 and 2.19) Hence, the argument hA ; engine oki will be provisionally rejected, since it is ....

....too (similarly, if L then not L) In DeLP this coherence principle also holds [GSC98] Finally, it must be remarked the original Simari Loui formulation [SL92] contains a fixed point definition that characterizes all justified beliefs. A similar approach was used later by Prakken and Sartor [PS97] in an extended logic programming setting, getting a revised version of well founded semantics as defined by Dung [Dun93] These analogies highlight the link between well founded semantics and skeptical argumentative frameworks. 28 5.2 Conclusion We have related in this paper the logical ....

Henry Prakken and Giovanni Sartor. Argument-based logic programming with defeasible priorities. Journal of Applied Non-classical Logics, 7:25-- 75, 1997.

....(similarly, if L then not L) In DeLP this coherence principle also holds [GSC98] Finally, it must be remarked the the original Simari Loui formulation [SL92] contains a xed point de nition that characterizes all justi ed beliefs. A similar approach was used later 10 by Prakken Sartor [PS97] in an extended logic programming setting, getting a revised version of well founded semantics as de ned by Dung [Dun93] These analogies highlight the link between well founded semantics and skeptical argumentative frameworks. 6 Conclusion We have related in this paper the logical framework ....

Henry Prakken and Giovanni Sartor. Argument-based logic programming with defeasible priorities. Journal of Applied Non-classical Logics, 7:25-75, 1997.

....in P have no counterarguments, and therefore no defeaters. As a direct consequence of De nitions 2.19, 2.20 and 2. 21, it follows that any strict argument A for a literal Q will be a justi cation for Q: similar results hold for other argumentation systems, such as Vreeswijk s [Vre93] and Prakken s [PS97]. Example 2.22 Consider Example 2.9, and assume our main query is engine ok. An argument hA; engine oki can be built, which is defeated by the argument hB; fuel oki (as shown in Examples 2.13, 2.15 and 2.17) Hence, the argument hA; engine oki will be provisionally rejected, since it is ....

....hold too (similarly, if L then not L) In DeLP this coherence principle also holds [GSC98] Finally, it must be remarked the original Simari Loui formulation [SL92] contains a xed point de nition that characterizes all justi ed beliefs. A similar approach was used later by Prakken Sartor [PS97] in an extended logic programming setting, getting a revised version of well founded semantics as de ned by Dung [Dun93] These analogies highlight the link between wellfounded semantics and skeptical argumentative frameworks. 5.2 Conclusion We have related in this paper the logical framework ....

Henry Prakken and Giovanni Sartor. Argument-based logic programming with defeasible priorities. Journal of Applied Nonclassical Logics, 7:25-75, 1997. 28

.... player(X) libero(X) kick(X) libero(X) player(X) goalie(X) kick(X) libero(X) eager(X) kick(X) goalie(X) eager(diego) libero(diego) goalie(oli) Nute s defeasible logic [6, 20] recent extensions of defeasible logic [2, 19] and some defeasible argumentation formalisms [14, 23, 27], 4 also make use of defeasible and strict rules for representing knowledge. However, in most of these formalisms a priority relation among rules must be explicitly given with the program in order to handle contradictory information. In DeLP, an argumentation formalism for deciding between ....

....reference. 15 criterion for choosing between conflicting extensions in proof theoretic approaches, whereas the dialectical analysis determines whether a given extension (argument) is ultimately preferred. Other argumentation formalisms particularly those motivated by legal reasoning, such as [23] consider priorities as well as defeasible reasoning about priorities. It must be remarked that in these cases criteria for comparing arguments are also debatable, and in many cases they are subordinated to hierarchical and temporal considerations (see [23] for an in depth discussion) In ....

[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]

H. Prakken and G. Sartor. Argument-based logic programming with defeasible priorities. Journal of Applied Non-classical Logics, 7:25--75, 1997.

....the premises When we will use adaptive logics on prioritized belief bases, a very usefull tool will be to formalize the notion of doubt. This will enable us to remove the certainty of the premises, to stress the fact that the premises are not facts, but merely beliefs 14 . In their [PS96] and [PS97], Henry Prakken and Giovanni Sartor work with two distinct negations: the strong negation : and the weak variant . The rst of the two is classical negation: it denotes the fact that something is not the case. The latter however is much weaker, denoting the fact that we assume (their ....

Henry Prakken and Giovanni Sartor. Argument-based logic programming with defeasible priorities. Journal of Applied Non-classical Logics, 7(1-2):25-75, 1997.

.... can only be derived if ok(ffi 0 ) is true) The extensions of the ordered default theory (W; D; are the extensions of T , restricted to the language of (W; D) these are always extensions of the unordered default theory (W; D) An extended approach allows for dynamic preferences similar as in [31, 57, 62, 70], by supporting the explicit representation of preference information between defaults in W and D. Delgrande and Schaub s proposal is different from ours. Like Gelfond and Son [31] they translate priorities into the object language of a non prioritized underlying formalism, rather than treating ....

....Delgrande and Schaub dependencies between rules must be carefully respected for assigning priorities. Gelfond and Son. In a recent paper, Gelfond and Son have also tackled the problem of adding priorities on defaults expressing normality in the language of extended logic programs [31] Similar to [17, 62, 57, 71], their approach foresees the specification of preference over rules in the object language. An important difference to our approach is that rules are, similar as in [51, 57, 62] divided into definite rules and default (defeasible) rules. While definite rules must be strictly obeyed, default ....

[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]

H. Prakken and G. Sartor. Argument-based Logic Programming with Defeasible Priorities. Journal of Applied Non-Classical Logics, 7:25--75, 1997.

No context found.

H. Prakken and G. Sartor. Argument-based logic programming with defeasible priorities. Journal of Applied Non-classical Logics, 7:25--75, 1997.

No context found.

Prakken, Henry, & Sartor, Giovanni. (1997). Argument-based logic programming with defeasible priorities. J. of applied non-classical logics, 7(25-75).

No context found.

PRAKKEN H., SARTOR G., "Argument-based logic programming with defeasible priorities", Journal of Applied Non-classical Logics, vol. 7, 1997, p. 25-75.

No context found.

Prakken, H. 1997a. Argument-based logic programming with defeasible priorities. Journal of Applied Non-classical Logics 7:25--75.

No context found.

H. Prakken. Argument-based logic programming with defeasible priorities. Journal of Applied Non-classical Logics, 7:25--75, 1997.

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