Contradiction: When Avoidance Equals Removal - Part I
نویسندگان
چکیده
Recently several authors have stressed and illustrated the importance of including a second kind of negation (explicit negation) in logic programs besides \negation as failure", and its use in deductive databases, knowledge representation, and nonmonotonic reasoning. By introducing explicit negation into logic programs contradiction may appear. In this work we present two approaches for dealing with contradiction , and show their equivalence. One of the approaches consists in avoiding contradiction, and is based on restrictions in the adoption of abductive hypotheses. The other approach consists in removing contradiction , and is based on a transformation of contradictory programs into noncontradictory ones, guided by the reasons for contradiction. The work is divided into two parts: one is presented in this paper, and comprises the contradiction avoidance approach, and the other in 16] in this volume, comprises the contradiction removal approach and shows the equivalence between the avoidance and removal approaches.
منابع مشابه
Contradiction: When Avoidance Equals Removal - Part II
This paper is the continuation of 1] in this volume. There we present a sceptical semantics which avoids contradiction for extended logic programs plus integrity contraints in the form of denials, based on the notion of optative hypotheses {an abductive approach. In this part we deene a program revision method for removing contradiction from contradictory programs under WFSX, based on the notio...
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 کاملContradiction Removal within Well Founded Semantics
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...
متن کاملDiagnosis and Debugging as Contradiction Removal in Logic Programs
We apply to normal logic programs with integrity rules a contradiction removal approach, and use it to uniformly treat diagnosis and debugging, and as a matter of fact envisage programs as artifacts and fault-nding as debugging. Our originality resides in applying to such programs the principle that if an assumption leads to contradiction then it should be revised: assumptions are not A literal...
متن کاملOptative Reasoning with Scenario Semantics
The scenario semantics of extended logic programs builds upon simple primitive notions and has been shown to encompass many important logic program semantics. Here we introduce into the scenario semantics paradigm a general exible notion of optative acceptance of acceptable hypotheses, and proceed to illustrate its application to fault diagnosis, taxonomic reasoning, and declarative logic progr...
متن کامل