Abstract
Two prominent ways of handling inconsistency provided by the state of the art are repair semantics and Defeasible Logics. In this paper we place ourselves in the setting of inconsistent knowledge bases expressed using existential rules and investigate how these approaches relate to each other. We run an experiment that checks how human intuitions align with those of either repair-based or defeasible methods and propose a new semantics combining both worlds.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
- 1.
It should be noted that this restriction does not lead to a loss of expressive power, as [2] shows.
- 2.
Situations and detailed results are available at https://www.dropbox.com/s/4wkblgdx7hzj7s8/situations.pdf.
References
Antoniou, G., Billington, D., Governatori, G., Maher, M.J., Rock, A.: A family of defeasible reasoning logics and its implementation. In: Proceedings of the 14th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 459–463 (2000)
Bacchus, F., Chen, X., van Beek, P., Walsh, T.: Binary vs. non-binary constraints. Artif. Intell. 140(1/2), 1–37 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1016/S0004-3702(02)00210-2
Baget, J.F., Garreau, F., Mugnier, M.L., Rocher, S.: Extending acyclicity notions for existential rules. In: ECAI, pp. 39–44 (2014)
Baget, J.F., Garreau, F., Mugnier, M.L., Rocher, S.: Revisiting chase termination for existential rules and their extension to nonmonotonic negation. arXiv preprint arXiv:1405.1071 (2014)
Baget, J.F., Leclère, M., Mugnier, M.L., Salvat, E.: On rules with existential variables: walking the decidability line. Artif. Intell. 175(9–10), 1620–1654 (2011)
Benferhat, S., Bouraoui, Z., Croitoru, M., Papini, O., Tabia, K.: Non-objection inference for inconsistency-tolerant query answering. In: IJCAI, pp. 3684–3690 (2016)
Billington, D.: Defeasible logic is stable. J. Log. Comput. 3(4), 379–400 (1993)
Billington, D., Antoniou, G., Governatori, G., Maher, M.: An inclusion theorem for defeasible logics. ACM Trans. Comput. Log. (TOCL) 12(1), 6 (2010)
Calì, A., Gottlob, G., Lukasiewicz, T.: A general datalog-based framework for tractable query answering over ontologies. Web Semant. Sci. Serv. Agents World Wide Web 14, 57–83 (2012)
Deagustini, C.A., Martinez, M.V., Falappa, M.A., Simari, G.R.: On the influence of incoherence in inconsistency-tolerant semantics for Datalog+-. In: JOWO@ IJCAI (2015)
Flouris, G., Huang, Z., Pan, J.Z., Plexousakis, D., Wache, H.: Inconsistencies, negations and changes in ontologies. In: Proceedings of the National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, vol. 21, p. 1295. AAAI Press; MIT Press, Menlo Park, Cambridge, London (1999, 2006)
Governatori, G., Maher, M.J., Antoniou, G., Billington, D.: Argumentation semantics for defeasible logic. J. Log. Comput. 14(5), 675–702 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1093/logcom/14.5.675.1
Hecham, A., Bisquert, P., Croitoru, M.: On a flexible representation of defeasible reasoning variants. In: Proceedings of the 17th Conference on Autonomous Agents and MultiAgent Systems, pp. 1123–1131 (2018)
Hecham, A., Croitoru, M., Bisquert, P.: DAMN: defeasible reasoning tool for multi-agent reasoning. In: AAAI 2020–34th AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence. Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence, New York, United States, February 2020. https://hal-lirmm.ccsd.cnrs.fr/lirmm-02393877
Horty, J.F., Thomason, R.H., Touretzky, D.S.: A skeptical theory of inheritance in nonmonotonic semantic networks. Artif. Intell. 42(2–3), 311–348 (1990)
Lembo, D., Lenzerini, M., Rosati, R., Ruzzi, M., Savo, D.F.: Inconsistency-tolerant semantics for description logics. In: Hitzler, P., Lukasiewicz, T. (eds.) RR 2010. LNCS, vol. 6333, pp. 103–117. Springer, Heidelberg (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-15918-3_9
Marnette, B.: Generalized schema-mappings: from termination to tractability. In: Proceedings of the Twenty-Eighth ACM SIGMOD-SIGACT-SIGART Symposium on Principles of Database Systems, pp. 13–22. ACM (2009)
Nute, D.: Defeasible reasoning: a philosophical analysis in prolog. In: Fetzer, J.H. (ed.) Aspects of Artificial Intelligence. Studies in Cognitive Systems, vol. 1, pp. 251–288. Springer, Dordrecht (1988). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-2699-8_9
Rocher, S.: Querying existential rule knowledge bases: decidability and complexity. Ph.D. thesis, Université de Montpellier (2016)
Acknowledgement
We would like to thanks the anonymous reviewers for their helpful and constructive comments.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this paper
Cite this paper
Hecham, A., Bisquert, P., Croitoru, M. (2020). A Formalism Unifying Defeasible Logics and Repair Semantics for Existential Rules. In: Alam, M., Braun, T., Yun, B. (eds) Ontologies and Concepts in Mind and Machine. ICCS 2020. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 12277. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-57855-8_1
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-57855-8_1
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-57854-1
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-57855-8
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)