lntroducing generalized specificity in logic programming
Most formalisms for representing common-sense knowledge allow incomplete and potentially inconsistent information. When strong negation is also allowed, contradictory conclusions can arise. A criterion for deciding between them is needed. The aim of this paper is to investigate an inherent and auton...
Guardado en:
| Autores principales: | , , , |
|---|---|
| Formato: | Objeto de conferencia |
| Lenguaje: | Inglés |
| Publicado: |
2000
|
| Materias: | |
| Acceso en línea: | http://sedici.unlp.edu.ar/handle/10915/23656 |
| Aporte de: |
| Sumario: | Most formalisms for representing common-sense knowledge allow incomplete and potentially inconsistent information. When strong negation is also allowed, contradictory conclusions can arise. A criterion for deciding between them is needed. The aim of this paper is to investigate an inherent and autonomous comparison criterion, based on specificity as defined in [19, 22]. In contrast to other approaches, we consider not only defeasible, but also strict knowledge. Our criterion is context-sensitive, i.e. preference among defeasible rules is determined dynamically during the dialectical analysis.
We show how specificity can be defined in terms of two different approaches: activation sets and derivation trees. This allows us to get a more syntactic criterion that can be implemented in a computationally attractive way. The resulting definitions may be applied in general rule-based formalisms. We present theorems linking both characterizations.
Finally we discuss other frameworks for defeasible reasoning in which preference handling is considered explicitly |
|---|