Advertisement

Foundations of knowledge representation and reasoning

A guide to this volume
  • Gerhard Lakemeyer
  • Bernhard Nebel
Chapter
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 810)

Keywords

Knowledge Representation Belief Revision Inference Algorithm Reasoning Task Default Logic 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. [AAAI-90, 1990]
    Proceedings of the 8th National Conference of the American Association for Artificial Intelligence, Boston, MA, August 1990. MIT Press.Google Scholar
  2. [Adams, 1975]
    E. W. Adams. The Logic of Conditionals. Reidel, Dordrecht, Holland, 1975.Google Scholar
  3. [Alchourrón et al., 1985]
    Carlos E. Alchourrón, Peter Gärdenfors, and David Makinson. On the logic of theory change: Partial meet contraction and revision functions. Journal of Symbolic Logic, 50(2):510–530, June 1985.Google Scholar
  4. [Allen et al., 1991]
    J. A. Allen, R. Fikes, and E. Sandewall, editors. Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning: Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference, Cambridge, MA, April 1991. Morgan Kaufmann.Google Scholar
  5. [Allgayer and Franconi, 1994]
    Jürgen Allgayer and Enrico Franconi. Collective entities and relations in concept languages. In Lakemeyer and Nebel [1994].Google Scholar
  6. [Baader and Hollunder, 1994]
    Franz Baader and Bernhard Hollunder. Computing extensions of terminological default theories. In Lakemeyer and Nebel [1994].Google Scholar
  7. [Bettini, 1994]
    C. Bettini. A formalization of interval-based temporal subsumption in first order logic. In Lakemeyer and Nebel [1994].Google Scholar
  8. [Boutilier, 1994]
    Craig Boutilier. Normative, subjunctive and autoepistemic defaults. In Lakemeyer and Nebel [1994].Google Scholar
  9. [Brachman and Levesque, 1984]
    Ronald J. Brachman and Hector J. Levesque. The tractability of subsumption in frame-based description languages. In Proceedings of the 4th National Conference of the American Association for Artificial Intelligence, pages 34–37, Austin, TX, 1984.Google Scholar
  10. [Brachman and Levesque, 1985]
    Ronald J. Brachman and Hector J. Levesque, editors. Readings in Knowledge Representation. Morgan Kaufmann, Los Altos, CA, 1985.Google Scholar
  11. [Brachman et al., 1989]
    R. Brachman, H. J. Levesque, and R. Reiter, editors. Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning: Proceedings of the 1st International Conference, Toronto, ON, May 1989. Morgan Kaufmann.Google Scholar
  12. [Brachman, 1990]
    Ronald J. Brachman. The future of knowledge representation. In AAAI-90 [1990], pages 1082–1092.Google Scholar
  13. [Brewka, 1991]
    Gerhard Brewka. Nonmonotonic Reasoning: Logical Foundations of Commonsense. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 1991.Google Scholar
  14. [Console and Dupré, 1994]
    Luca Console and Daniele Dupré. Abductive reasoning with abstraction axioms. In Lakemeyer and Nebel [1994].Google Scholar
  15. [Donini et al., 1991]
    Francesco M. Donini, Maurizio Lenzerini, Daniele Nardi, and Werner Nutt. Tractable concept languages. In Proceedings of the 12th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pages 458–465, Sydney, Australia, August 1991. Morgan Kaufmann.Google Scholar
  16. [Donini et al., 1994]
    [Donini et al., 1994] Francesco Donini, Maurizio Lenzerini, Daniele Nardi, Andrea Schaerf, and Werner Nutt. Queries, rules and definitions as epistemic sentences in concept languages. In Lakemeyer and Nebel [1994].Google Scholar
  17. [Doyle and Patil, 1991]
    Jon Doyle and Ramesh S. Patil. Two theses of knowledge representation: Language restrictions, taxonomic classification, and the utility of representation services. Artificial Intelligence, 48(3):261–298, April 1991.Google Scholar
  18. [Garey and Johnson, 1979]
    Michael R. Garey and David S. Johnson. Computers and Intractability-A Guide to the Theory of NP-Completeness. Freeman, San Francisco, CA, 1979.Google Scholar
  19. [Gottlob, 1992]
    Georg Gottlob. Complexity results for nonmonotonic logics. Journal for Logic and Computation, 2(3), 1992.Google Scholar
  20. [Gottlob, 1994]
    Georg Gottlob. The power of beliefs or translating default logic into standard autoepistemic logic. In Lakemeyer and Nebel [1994].Google Scholar
  21. [Greiner and Schuurmans, 1994]
    Russell Greiner and Dale Schuurmans. Learning an optimally accurate representation system. In Lakemeyer and Nebel [1994].Google Scholar
  22. [Hayes, 1977]
    Patrick J. Hayes. In defence of logic. In Proceedings of the 5th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pages 559–565, Cambridge, MA, August 1977.Google Scholar
  23. [Junker and Konolige, 1990]
    Ulrich Junker and Kurt Konolige. Computing extensions of autoepistemic and default logics with a truth maintenance system. In AAAI-90 [1990], pages 278–283.Google Scholar
  24. [Kakas, 1994]
    A. C. Kakas. Default reasoning via negation as failure. In Lakemeyer and Nebel [1994].Google Scholar
  25. [Kalinski, 1994]
    Jürgen Kalinski. Weak autoepistemic reasoning and well-founded semantics. In Lakemeyer and Nebel [1994].Google Scholar
  26. [Katsuno and Mendelzon, 1991]
    Hirofumi Katsuno and Alberto O. Mendelzon. On the difference between updating a knowledge base and revising it. In Allen et al. [1991], pages 387–394.Google Scholar
  27. [Kautz and Selman, 1994]
    Henry Kautz and Bart Selman. Forming concepts for fast inference. In Lakemeyer and Nebel [1994].Google Scholar
  28. [Lakemeyer and Nebel, 1994]
    Gerhard Lakemeyer and Bernhard Nebel, editors. Foundations of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, New York, 1994.Google Scholar
  29. [Levesque and Brachman, 1987]
    Hector J. Levesque and Ronald J. Brachman. Expressiveness and tractability in knowledge representation and reasoning. Computational Intelligence, 3:78–93, 1987.Google Scholar
  30. [Levesque, 1988]
    Hector J. Levesque. Logic and the complexity of reasoning. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 17:355–389, 1988.Google Scholar
  31. [Lewis, 1973]
    David K. Lewis. Counterfactuals. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 1973.Google Scholar
  32. [Lin, 1994]
    Yuen Q. Lin. A common-sense theory of time. In Lakemeyer and Nebel [1994].Google Scholar
  33. [McCarthy, 1968]
    John McCarthy. Programs with common sense. In M. Minsky, editor, Semantic Information Processing, pages 403–418. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1968.Google Scholar
  34. [McCarthy, 1980]
    John McCarthy. Circumscription-a form of non-monotonic reasoning. Artificial Intelligence, 13(1–2):27–39, 1980.Google Scholar
  35. [McDermott, 1978]
    Drew V. McDermott. Tarskian semantics, or no notation without denotation! Cognitive Science, 2(3):277–282, July 1978.Google Scholar
  36. [Moore, 1985]
    Robert C. Moore. Semantical considerations on nonmonotonic logic. Artificial Intelligence, 25:75–94, 1985.Google Scholar
  37. [Myers and Konolige, 1994]
    Karen Myers and Kurt Konolige. Reasoning with analogical representations. In Lakemeyer and Nebel [1994].Google Scholar
  38. [Nebel et al., 1992]
    [Nebel et al., 1992] B. Nebel, W. Swartout, and C. Rich, editors. Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning: Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference, Cambridge, MA, October 1992. Morgan Kaufmann.Google Scholar
  39. [Nebel, 1991]
    Bernhard Nebel. Belief revision and default reasoning: Syntax-based approaches. In Allen et al. [1991], pages 417–428.Google Scholar
  40. [Nejdl and Banagl, 1994]
    Wolfgang Nejdl and Markus Banagl. Asking about possibilities — revision and update semantics for subjunctive queries (extended report). In Lakemeyer and Nebel [1994].Google Scholar
  41. [Niemelä and Rintanen, 1994]
    Ilkka Niemelä and Jussi Rintanen. On the impact of stratification on the complexity of nonmonotonic reasoning. In Lakemeyer and Nebel [1994].Google Scholar
  42. [Pearl, 1988]
    Judea Pearl. Probabilistic Reasoning in Intelligent Systems: Networks of Plausible Inference. Morgan Kaufmann, San Mateo, CA, 1988.Google Scholar
  43. [Reiter, 1980]
    Raymond Reiter. A logic for default reasoning. Artificial Intelligence, 13(1):81–132, April 1980.Google Scholar
  44. [Reiter, 1987]
    Raymond Reiter. Nonmonotonic reasoning. Annual Review of Computing Sciences, 2, 1987.Google Scholar
  45. [Schmidt-Schauß and Smolka, 1991]
    Manfred Schmidt-Schauß and Gert Smolka. Attributive concept descriptions with complements. Artificial Intelligence, 48:1–26, 1991.Google Scholar
  46. [Schwind and Risch, 1991]
    C. Schwind and V. Risch. A tableau-based characterisation for default logic. In R. Kruse and P. Siegel, editors, Symbolic and Quantitative Approaches to Uncertainty, Proceedings of the European Conference ECSQAU, pages 310–317, Marseilles, France, 1991. Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  47. [Selman and Kautz, 1991]
    Bart Selman and Henry Kautz. Knowledge compilation using Horn approximations. In Proceedings of the 9th National Conference of the American Association for Artificial Intelligence, pages 904–909, Anaheim, CA, July 1991. MIT Press.Google Scholar
  48. [Shoham and Cousins, 1994]
    Yoav Shoham and Steve B. Cousins. Logics of mental attitudes in AI — a very preliminary survey. In Lakemeyer and Nebel [1994].Google Scholar
  49. [Smith, 1982]
    Brian C. Smith. Reflection and Semantics in a Procedural Language. PhD thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, 1982. Report MIT/LCS/TR-272.Google Scholar
  50. [Weydert, 1994]
    Emil Weydert. Hyperrational conditionals — monotonic reasoning about nested default conditionals. In Lakemeyer and Nebel [1994].Google Scholar
  51. [Witteveen and Jonker, 1994]
    Cees Witteveen and Catholijn M. Jonker. Revision by expansion in logic programs. In Lakemeyer and Nebel [1994].Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1994

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gerhard Lakemeyer
    • 1
  • Bernhard Nebel
    • 2
  1. 1.Institute of Computer ScienceUniversity of BonnBonnGermany
  2. 2.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of UlmUlmGermany

Personalised recommendations