M.-A. Winslett. Reasoning about action using a possible models approach. In R. G. Smith and T. M. Mitchell, editors, Proc. 7th Nat. Conf. on Arti cial Intelligence (AAAI'88), pages 89-93, St. Paul, 1988. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers.  Home/Search   Document Not in Database   Summary   Related Articles   Check

....and increase between M 1 and M 2 in terms of M . Note that during the comparison between two k models, we give preference to the change of the actual world over the change of knowledge about the world. The closeness criterion between actual worlds that we use is the commonly used criterion [25] based on symmetric di#erence) For instance, if the actual world of a k model M 1 is closer to the actual world of M than the actual world of another k model M 2 , we will think M 1 is closer to M and the comparison of knowledge between M 1 and M 2 is ignored. Only when both M 1 and M 2 have the ....

M. Winslett. Reasoning about action using a possible models approach. In Proceedings of the 7th National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI88) , pages 89-93, 1988.

....as a collection of objects dealt with in the system activities. For example, in the blocks world, its domain could include a number of blocks and a table, and the effects of actions related to this world may change positions or colors of these blocks. By examining current action theories, e.g. [2, 7], it is clear that these approaches only consider static domains in reasoning about change where objects in the domain are usually fixed from the beginning and actions may just change objects properties (e.g. paint block a to red color) or relationships among different objects (e.g. move block a ....

M. Winslett. Reasoning about action using a possible models approach. In Proceedings of AAAI-88, pages 89-93, 1988.

....Our treatment of referential ICs considerably extends what has been sketched in [4, 26] There are several similarities between our approach to consistency handling and those followed by the belief revision update community. Database repairs coincide with revised models de ned by Winslett in [35]. The treatment in [35] is mainly propositional, but a preliminary extension to rst order knowledge bases can be found in [16] Those papers concentrate on the computation of the models of the revised theory, i.e. the repairs in our case, but not on query answering. Comparing our framework with ....

....ICs considerably extends what has been sketched in [4, 26] There are several similarities between our approach to consistency handling and those followed by the belief revision update community. Database repairs coincide with revised models de ned by Winslett in [35] The treatment in [35] is mainly propositional, but a preliminary extension to rst order knowledge bases can be found in [16] Those papers concentrate on the computation of the models of the revised theory, i.e. the repairs in our case, but not on query answering. Comparing our framework with that of belief ....

Winslett, M. Reasoning about Action using a Possible Models Approach. In ##### ####### ######## ##################### ############ #########, 1988, pp. 89-93. Appendix: Intermediate Results and Proofs Proofs for Section 3 Proof of Lemma 1: This result extends a similar result in [3]. We concentrate on the cases not covered there. We have to show #(DB ; DB

....of the relationship between the annotations, a linear number of rules is generated. There are several similarities between our approach to consistency handling and those followed by the belief revision update community. Database repairs coincide with revised models de ned by Winslett in [30]. The treatment in [30] is mainly propositional, but a preliminary extension to rst order knowledge bases can be found in [15] Those papers concentrate on the computation of the models of the revised theory, i.e. the repairs in our case, but not on query answering. Comparing our framework with ....

....between the annotations, a linear number of rules is generated. There are several similarities between our approach to consistency handling and those followed by the belief revision update community. Database repairs coincide with revised models de ned by Winslett in [30] The treatment in [30] is mainly propositional, but a preliminary extension to rst order knowledge bases can be found in [15] Those papers concentrate on the computation of the models of the revised theory, i.e. the repairs in our case, but not on query answering. Comparing our framework with that of belief ....

Winslett, M. Reasoning about Action using a Possible Models Approach. In Proc. Seventh National Conference on Arti cial Intelligence (AAAI'88), 1988, pp. 89-93.

....Our treatment of referential ICs considerably extends what has been sketched in [4, 26] There are several similarities between our approach to consistency handling and those followed by the belief revision update community. Database repairs coincide with revised models de ned by Winslett in [35]. The treatment in [35] is mainly propositional, but a preliminary extension to rst order knowledge bases can be found in [16] Those papers concentrate on the computation of the models of the revised theory, i.e. the repairs in our case, but not on query answering. Comparing our framework with ....

....ICs considerably extends what has been sketched in [4, 26] There are several similarities between our approach to consistency handling and those followed by the belief revision update community. Database repairs coincide with revised models de ned by Winslett in [35] The treatment in [35] is mainly propositional, but a preliminary extension to rst order knowledge bases can be found in [16] Those papers concentrate on the computation of the models of the revised theory, i.e. the repairs in our case, but not on query answering. Comparing our framework with that of belief ....

Winslett, M. Reasoning about Action using a Possible Models Approach. In Proc. Seventh National Conference on Arti cial Intelligence (AAAI'88), 1988, pp. 89-93.

....in such a way as to obtain locality. 7. 1 Belief revision and update Semantically, our approach to consistency handling corresponds to some of the approaches followed by the belief revision update community [45,46] Database repairs (Definition 2) coincide with revised models defined by Winslett [96]. Both use the same notion of minimality. Comparing our framework with that of belief revision, we have an empty domain theory, one model: a database instance, and a revision by a set of integrity constraints. The revision of a database instance by the integrity constraints produces new database ....

.... implicit notion of revision satisfies the postulates (R1) R5) R7) and (R8) introduced by Katsuno and Mendelzon [66] Dalal [32] postulated a di#erent notion of revision, based on minimizing the cardinality of the set of changes, as opposed to minimizing the set of changes under set inclusion [3,96]. In [6] it is shown how to capture repairs under Dalal s notion of revision by means of logic programs for consistent query answering. The belief revision community has adopted a notion of inference called counterfactual inference [45] that corresponds to our notion of a formula being ....

[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]

M. Winslett. Reasoning about Action using a Possible Models Approach. In National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 1988.

....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 ....

Marianne Winslett. Reasoning about action using a possible models approach. In Procs. of NCAI-88. AAAI Press, 1988.

....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 ....

Marianne Winslett. Reasoning about action using a possible models approach. In Procs. of NCAI-88. AAAI Press, 1988.

....as close as possible to the old one. These properties are intuitive requirements one can expect from revision operators. These operators and their properties have been formally studied in philosophy, artificial intelligence and databases [1, 12, 16] and several operators have already been proposed [5, 9, 27, 28, 25]. In general, revision is a complex process [8, 20] and is not efficiently computable. The problem is that revision operators usually handle theories closed under logical consequences. Then, the computation of (all the consequences of) the new theory according to the old one and to the new ....

M. Winslett. Reasoning about action using a possible models approach. In Proceedings AAAI'88, 1988, pages 89--93. Appendix: Update algorithm theory or our integrity constraints. Let L be a set of facts which can be seen as our beliefs about the world. We would like to define the change produced by a definition describes the result of this change:

No context found.

M.-A. Winslett. Reasoning about action using a possible models approach. In R. G. Smith and T. M. Mitchell, editors, Proc. 7th Nat. Conf. on Arti cial Intelligence (AAAI'88), pages 89-93, St. Paul, 1988. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers.

No context found.

Marianne Winslett. Reasoning about action using a possible models approach. In Proc. AAAI-88, pages 89--93, 1988. 37

No context found.

M. Winslett. Reasoning about action using a possible models approach. In Proceedings of the Seventh National (U.S.) Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pages 89--93, 1988. 14

No context found.

M. Winslett. Reasoning about action using a possible models approach. In Proceedings of the Seventh National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI '88), pages 89--93, St. Paul, Minnesota, 1988.

No context found.

M. Winslett. Reasoning about action using a possible model approach. In 7th AAAI, pages 89--93, 1988. This article was processed using the L a T E X macro package with LLNCS style

No context found.

M. Winslett. Reasoning about action using a possible models approach. In Proceedings of the National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI), pages 89--93, Saint Paul, Minnesota, Aug. 1988.

No context found.

M. Winslett. Reasoning about action using a possible models approach. In Proceedings of the AAAI National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pages 89--93, St. Paul, Minnesota, 1988. 43

No context found.

Marianne Winslett. Reasoning about action using a possible models approach. In Proceedings of the National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI), pages 89--93, Saint Paul, Minnesota, August 1988. This article was processed using the L a T E X macro package with LLNCS style

No context found.

M. Winslett. Reasoning about action using a possible models approach. In Proc. of AAAI88, the 7th National Conference on Articial Intelligence, pages 8993, St. Paul, USA, 1988.

No context found.

M. Winslett. Reasoning about action using a possible models approach. Proceedings of AAAI-88, pp. 89-93, Saint Paul, MN, August 1988. 40

No context found.

Marianne Winslett. Reasoning about action using a possible models approach. In Proc. of AAAI-88, pages 89-93, 1988. 16

No context found.

Marianne Winslett. Reasoning about action using a possible models approach. In Proceedings of the National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI), pages 89--93, Saint Paul, Minnesota, August 1988.

No context found.

Marianne Winslett. Reasoning about action using a possible models approach. In In Proceedings of the Seventh National Conference on Artificial Intelligence(AAAI), pages 89 -- 93, Department of Computer Science University of Illinois, Urbana, IL 61801, August 1988. 17

No context found.

M. Winslett. Reasoning about action using a possible models approach. In Proceedings of the AAAI National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pages 89--93, St. Paul, Minnesota, 1988. 44

No context found.

Marianne Winslett. Reasoning about action using a possible models approach. In Proceedings of the National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI), pages 89--93, Saint Paul, Minnesota, August 1988. 29

No context found.

M. Winslett. Reasoning About Action Using a Possible Models Approach. In Proceedings of the AAAI National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pages 89--93, St. Paul, Minnesota, 1988.

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