Contradiction Removal within Well Founded Semantics
نویسندگان
چکیده
Our purpose is to deene a semantics that extends Well Founded Semantics for programs with classical negation, and which avoids the absence of models caused by contradictions brought about by closed world assumptions. This extension relies on allowing to take back such closed world assumptions, through making their truth value become undeened, and thus permiting noncontradictory models to appear. We take back such assumptions in a minimal way for all alternative ways of removing contradictions, by means of simple transformations of the original program. The transformed programs have contradiction free Well Founded Models. Moreover, we identify a unique model that deenes the semantics of the original program, which is included in all the alternative contradiction free models. This unique model coincides with the Well Founded Model when the latter is noncontradictory. The notions of minimality and contradiction removal employed are useful for dealing with Belief Revision. These techniques for removing contradictions in the sense of classical logic, are also adequate for removing contradiction in the sense of integrity constraints violation. Another important result is that our removal semantics (the contradiction removal semantics) is deened as the Well Founded Model of a derived program obtained by a simple transformation from the original one. Thus no new model determining algorithms are needed. For noncontradictory programs the two programs coincide.
منابع مشابه
Debugging by Diagnosing Assumptions
We present a novel and uniform technique for normal logic program declarative error diagnosis. We lay down the foundations on a general approach to diagnosis using logic programming, and bring out the close relationship between debugging and fault{{nding. Diagnostic debugging can be enacted by contradiction removal methods. It relies on a simple program transformation to provide a contradiction...
متن کاملContradiction Removal Semantics with Explicit Negation
Well Founded Semantics for logic programs extended with eXplicit negation (WFSX) is characterized by that, in any model, whenever :a (the explicit negation of a) holds, then a (the negation by default of a) also holds. When explicit negation is used contradiction may be present (e.g. a and :a both hold for some a) and thus no semantics is given to the program. We introduce here the notion of re...
متن کاملNon-Monotonic Reasoning with Logic Programming
Our purpose is to exhibit a modular systematic method of representing non{ monotonic reasoning problems with the Well Founded Semantics WFS of extended logic programs augmented with eXplicit negation (WFSX), augmented by its Contradiction Removal Semantics (CRSX) when needed. We apply this semantics, and its contradiction removal semantics counterpart, to represent non-monotonic reasoning probl...
متن کاملRobust Semantics for Argumentation Frameworks
We suggest a so-called “robust” semantics for a model of argumentation which represents arguments and their interactions, called “argumentation frameworks”. We study a variety of additional definitions of acceptability of arguments; we explore the properties of these definitions; we describe their inter-relationships: e.g. robust models can be characterized using the minimal (well-founded) mode...
متن کاملLogic Programming for Non-Monotonic Reasoning
Our purpose is to exhibit a modular systematic method of representing nonmonotonic reasoning problems with the Well Founded Semantics of extended logic programs aumented with eXplicit negation (WFSX), augmented by its Contradiction Removal Semantics (CRSX) when needed. We show how to cast in the language of such logic programs forms of non-monotonic reasoning like defeasible reasoning and hypot...
متن کامل