A Preliminary Reification of Argument Theory Change

نویسندگان

  • Nicolás D. Rotstein
  • Martín O. Moguillansky
  • Marcelo A. Falappa
  • Alejandro Javier García
  • Guillermo Ricardo Simari
چکیده

In this article we introduce the basics for understanding the mechanisms of Argument Theory Change. In particular we reify it using Defeasible Logic Programming. In this formalism, knowledge bases are represented through defeasible logic programs. The main change operation we define over a defeasible logic program is a special kind of revision that inserts a new argument and then modifies the resulting program seeking for the argument’s warrant. Since the notion of argument refers to a set of defeasible rules, we generalize this technique in order to handle extended arguments, i.e., arguments containing also strict rules. Hence, revision using extended arguments allows us to consider program-independent arguments, which brings about new issues. A single notion of minimal change is analyzed, which refers to keep the contents of the program as much as possible. Finally, a brief discussion about the relation between our approach and the basic theory of belief revision is exposed, along with a description of other possible (more complex) minimal change principles.

برای دانلود رایگان متن کامل این مقاله و بیش از 32 میلیون مقاله دیگر ابتدا ثبت نام کنید

ثبت نام

اگر عضو سایت هستید لطفا وارد حساب کاربری خود شوید

منابع مشابه

A Critical Examination of Ibn-Sina’s Theory of the Conditional Syllogism

This paper will examine Ibn Sina’s theory of the Conditional Syllogism from a purely logical point of view, and will lay bare the principles he adopted for founding his theory, and the reason why the newly introduced part of his logic remained undeveloped and eventually was removed from the texts of logic in the later Islamic tradition. As a preliminary discussion, this paper briefly examines I...

متن کامل

Arguments in OWL: A Progress Report

In previous work, we presented an RDFS ontology, based on the Argument Interchange Format (AIF), for describing arguments and argument schemes. We also implemented a pilot Web-based system, called ArgDF, for authoring and querying argument structures represented in RDF. In this paper, we discuss some of the limitations of our earlier reification of the AIF. We then present a new ontology which ...

متن کامل

INVESTIGATING THE VALIDITY OF PHD ENTRANCE EXAM OF ELT IN IRAN IN LIGHT OF ARGUMENT-BASED VALIDITY AND THEORY OF ACTION

Although some piecemeal efforts have been made to investigate the validity and use of the Iranian PhD exam, no systematic project has been specifically carried out in this regard. The current study, hence, tried to attend to this void. As such, to ensure a balanced focus on test interpretation and test consequence, and to track evidence derived from a mixed–method study on the validity of Irani...

متن کامل

Paradox and Relativism

Since the time of Plato, relativism has been attacked as a self-refuting theory. Today, there are two basic kinds of argument that are used to show that global relativism is logically incoherent: first, a direct descendent of the argument Plato uses against Protagoras, called the peritrope; and, second, a more recent argument that relativism leads to an infinite regress. Although some relativis...

متن کامل

Reified Temporal Theories and How to Unreify Them

Reification of propositions expressing states, events, and properties has been widely advocated as a means of handling temporal reasoning in A I . The author proposes that such reification is both philosophically suspect and technically unnecessary. The reified theories of Allen and Shoham are examined and it is shown how they can be unreified. The resulting loss of expressive power can be rect...

متن کامل

ذخیره در منابع من


  با ذخیره ی این منبع در منابع من، دسترسی به آن را برای استفاده های بعدی آسان تر کنید

عنوان ژورنال:
  • Inteligencia Artificial, Revista Iberoamericana de Inteligencia Artificial

دوره 12  شماره 

صفحات  -

تاریخ انتشار 2008