BZPEERSource author record
Explore this author’s publications, collaborators and research topics. This catalog record has not been claimed by its author.
Catalog footprint
Published work
We introduce and investigate here a formalisation for conditionals that allows the definition of a broad class of reasoning systems. This framework covers the most popular kinds of conditional reasoning in logic-based KR: the semantics we propose is appropriate for a structural analysis of those conditionals that do not satisfy closure properties associated to classical logics.
The triple language RDFS is designed to represent and reason with \emph{positive} statements only (e.g."antipyretics are drugs"). In this paper we show how to extend RDFS to express and reason with various forms of negative statements under the Open World Assumption (OWA). To do so, we start from ρdf, a minimal, but significant RDFS fragment that covers all essential features of RDFS, and then extend it to ρdf⊥¬, allowing express also statements such as "radio therapies are non drug treatments", "Ebola has no treatment", or "opioids and antipyretics are disjoint classes". The main and, to the best of our knowledge, unique features of our proposal are: (i) ρdf⊥¬ remains syntactically a triple language by extending ρdf with new symbols with specific semantics and there is no need to revert to the reification method to represent negative triples; (ii) the logic is defined in such a way that any RDFS reasoner/store may handle the new predicates as ordinary terms if it does not want to take account of the extra capabilities; (iii) despite negated statements, every ρdf⊥¬ knowledge base is satisfiable; (iv) the ρdf⊥¬ entailment decision procedure is obtained from ρdf via additional inference rules favouring a potential implementation; and (v) deciding entailment in ρdf⊥¬ ranges from P to NP.
Lehmann and Magidor's rational closure is acknowledged as a landmark in the field of non-monotonic logics and it has also been re-formulated in the context of Description Logics (DLs). We show here how to model a rational form of entailment for expressive DLs, such as SROIQ, providing a novel reasoning procedure that compiles a non-monotone DL knowledge base into a description logic program (dl-program).
Propositional Typicality Logic (PTL) is a recently proposed logic, obtained by enriching classical propositional logic with a typicality operator capturing the most typical (alias normal or conventional) situations in which a given sentence holds. The semantics of PTL is in terms of ranked models as studied in the well-known KLM approach to preferential reasoning and therefore KLM-style rational consequence relations can be embedded in PTL. In spite of the non-monotonic features introduced by the semantics adopted for the typicality operator, the obvious Tarskian definition of entailment for PTL remains monotonic and is therefore not appropriate in many contexts. Our first important result is an impossibility theorem showing that a set of proposed postulates that at first all seem appropriate for a notion of entailment with regard to typicality cannot be satisfied simultaneously. Closer inspection reveals that this result is best interpreted as an argument for advocating the development of more than one type of PTL entailment. In the spirit of this interpretation, we investigate three different (semantic) versions of entailment for PTL, each one based on the definition of rational closure as introduced by Lehmann and Magidor for KLM-style conditionals, and constructed using different notions of minimality.
We propose a method for an agent to revise its incomplete probabilistic beliefs when a new piece of propositional information is observed. In this work, an agent's beliefs are represented by a set of probabilistic formulae -- a belief base. The method involves determining a representative set of 'boundary' probability distributions consistent with the current belief base, revising each of these probability distributions and then translating the revised information into a new belief base. We use a version of Lewis Imaging as the revision operation. The correctness of the approach is proved. The expressivity of the belief bases under consideration are rather restricted, but has some applications. We also discuss methods of belief base revision employing the notion of optimum entropy, and point out some of the benefits and difficulties in those methods. Both the boundary distribution method and the optimum entropy method are reasonable, yet yield different results.
Research graph
Inspect adjacent papers, topics, institutions and collaborators without losing the researcher page.
BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.