Abstract

We present the design and implementation of SPINdle – an open source Java based defeasible logic reasoner capable to perform efficient and scalable reasoning on defeasible logic theories (including theories with over 1 million rules). The implementation covers both the standard and modal extensions to defeasible logics. It can be used as a standalone theory prover and can be embedded into any applications as a defeasible logic rule engine. It allows users or agents to issues queries, on a given knowledge base or a theory generated on the fly by other applications, and automatically produces the conclusions of its consequences. The theory can also be represented using XML.

Keywords

Defeasible Logic Modal Defeasible Logic Reasoning 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Nute, D.: Defeasible logic. In: Gabbay, D., Hogger, C. (eds.) Handbook of Logic for Artificial Intelligence and Logic Programming, vol. III, pp. 353–395. Oxford University Press, Oxford (1994)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Maher, M.J.: Propositional defeasible logic has linear complexity. Theory and Practice of Logic Programming 1(6), 691–711 (2001)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Antoniou, G., Billington, D., Governatori, G., Maher, M.J.: Representation results for defeasible logic. ACM Transactions on Computational Logic 2(2), 255–286 (2001)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Antoniou, G., Billington, D., Governatori, G., Maher, M.J.: Embedding defeasible logic into logic programming. Theory and Practice of Logic Programming 6(6), 703–735 (2006)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Billington, D.: Defeasible logic is stable. J. Logic Computation 3(4), 379–400 (1993)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Antoniou, G., Billington, D., Governatori, G., Maher, M.J.: On the modeling and analysis of regulations. In: Proceedings of the Australian Conference Information Systems, pp. 20–29 (1999)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Governatori, G., Rotolo, A.: Defeasible logic: Agency, intention and obligation. In: Lomuscio, A., Nute, D. (eds.) DEON 2004. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 3065, pp. 114–128. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bassiliades, N., Antoniou, G., Vlahavas, I.: A defeasible logic reasoner for the semantic web. International Journal of Semantic Web and Information Systems 2(1), 1–41 (2006)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Governatori, G., Milosevic, Z., Sadiq, S.: Compliance checking between business processes and business contracts. In: 10th International Enterprise Distributed Object Computing Conference (EDOC 2006), pp. 221–232. IEEE Computing Society, Los Alamitos (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Governatori, G., Rotolo, A.: BIO logical agents: Norms, beliefs, intentions in defeasible logic. Journal of Autonomous Agents and Multi Agent Systems 17, 36–69 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Maher, M.J., Rock, A., Antoniou, G., Billington, D., Miller, T.: Efficient defeasible reasoning systems. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence Tools 10, 483–501 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Governatori, G., Rotolo, A., Sartor, G.: Temporalised normative positions in defeasible logic. In: 10th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law (ICAIL 2005), pp. 25–34. ACM Press, New York (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ho-Pun Lam
    • 1
    • 2
  • Guido Governatori
    • 2
  1. 1.School of Information Technology and Electrical EngineeringThe University of QueenslandBrisbaneAustralia
  2. 2.Queensland Research LaboratoryNICTABrisbaneAustralia

Personalised recommendations