• Aucun résultat trouvé

Preferential Semantics as the Basis for Defeasible Reasoning in Ontologies

N/A
N/A
Protected

Academic year: 2022

Partager "Preferential Semantics as the Basis for Defeasible Reasoning in Ontologies"

Copied!
1
0
0

Texte intégral

(1)

Preferential Semantics as the Basis for Defeasible Reasoning in Ontologies

Thomas Meyer

CAIR, University of Cape Town South Africa

tmeyer@cs.uct.ac.za

Abstract. Preferential extensions of classical logics provide a promising foun- dation on which to base notions of entailment for defeasible reasoning. In this talk I will give an overview of one such a preferential extension, originally pro- posed by Sarit Kraus, Daniel Lehmann, and Menachem Magidor. This approach has two main advantages. Firstly, it permits a formal analysis of defeasible prop- erties, which plays a central role in assessing how appropriate the obtained results are. And secondly, it allows for decision problems to be reduced to classical en- tailment checking, sometimes without blowing up the computational complexity with respect to the underlying classical case. The focus of the talk will be on the recent application and extension of this approach to the class of description log- ics, allowing for the expression of defeasible subsumption, defeasible equivalence, defeasible disjointness, defeasible quantification, and defeasible querying.

Références

Documents relatifs

School of Engineering and Information Technology University of New South Wales, Canberra..

Take the classic penguin example, and consider a knowledge base containing the statements: “penguins are birds”, “robins are birds”, “penguins do not fly”, “birds fly”

Furthermore, whereas classical, monotonic entailment is unique, there are arbitrarily many different defeasible entailments, and therefore what a defeasible entailment relation

We find evidence for correspondence with postulate U1, which states that updating with the new fact must ensure that the new fact is a consequence of the update.. We find evidence

Our methodology draws from Rodler’s [5] interactive ontology debugging approach which not only localises faulty axioms but provides the knowledge engineer with a strategic way

We define a (naïve) tableau- based algorithm for checking preferential consistency of contextual defeasible knowledge bases, a central piece in the definition of other forms

Therefore, this research focused on a qualitative comparison of the degree of explainability of defeasible argumentation and non-monotonic fuzzy reasoning in a real-world

The number of consis- tency checks of a classic knowledge base increases linearly in the number of individuals, given that the knowl- edge base has exactly one d-KB.. However, in