Advertisement

A Denotational Semantics of Defeasible Logic

  • Michael J. Maher
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1861)

Abstract

Defeasible logic is an efficient non-monotonic logic for defeasible reasoning. It is defined through a proof theory, and has no model theory. In this paper a denotational semantics is given for defeasible logic, as a step towards a full model theory. The logic is sound and complete wrt this semantics, but the semantics is not completely satisfactory as a model theory. We indicate directions for research that might resolve these issues.

Keywords

Logic Program Inference Rule Syntactic Category Proof Theory Strict Rule 
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. 1.
    G. Antoniou, D. Billington, M.J. Maher, A. Rock, A Flexible Framework for Defeasible Logics, Proc. American National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 2000, to appear.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    G. Antoniou, D. Billington and M.J. Maher. Normal Forms for Defeasible Logic. In Proc. Joint International Conference and Symposium on Logic Programming, J. Jaffar (Ed.), 160–174. MIT Press, 1998.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    G. Antoniou, D. Billington and M.J. Maher. On the analysis of regulations using defeasible rules. In Proc. of the 32 nd Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. IEEE Press, 1999.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    G. Antoniou, D. Billington, M.J. Maher, A. Rock, Efficient Defeasible Reasoning Systems, Proc. Australian Workshop on Computational Logic, 2000.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    D. Billington. Defeasible Logic is Stable. Journal of Logic and Computation 3: 370–400, 1993.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    A. Bossi, M. Gabbrielli, G. Levi, M.C. Meo. A Compositional Semantics for Logic Programs. Theoretical Computer Science 122(1&2): 3–47, 1994.zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    S.N. Donnelly. Semantics, Soundness and Incompleteness for a Defeasible Logic. M.S. thesis, University of Georgia, 1999.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    P.M. Dung and K. Kanchanasut. A Fixpoint Approach to Declarative Semantics of Logic Programs. Proc. North American Conf. on Logic Programming, 604–625, 1989.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    M. Fitting, A Kripke-Kleene Semantics for Logic Programs, Journal of Logic Programming, 4, 295–312, 1985.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    G. Governatori and M. Maher, An Argumentation-Theoretic Characterization of Defeasible Logic, Proc. European Conf. on Artificial Intelligence, 2000, to appear.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    B.N. Grosof, Y. Labrou, and H.Y. Chan. A Declarative Approach to Business Rules in Contracts: Courteous Logic Programs in XML, Proceedings of the 1st ACM Conference on Electronic Commerce (EC-99), ACM Press, 1999.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    J. Jaffar and M.J. Maher, Constraint Logic Programming: A Survey, Journal of Logic Programming 19 & 20, 503–581, 1994.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    K. Kunen, Negation in Logic Programming, Journal of Logic Programming, 4, 289–308, 1987.CrossRefMathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    M.J. Maher, Equivalences of Logic Programs, in: Foundations of Deductive Databases and Logic Programming, J. Minker (Ed), Morgan Kaufmann, 627–658, 1988.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    M. Maher, G. Antoniou and D. Billington. A Study of Provability in Defeasible Logic. In Proc. Australian Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 215–226, LNAI 1502, Springer, 1998.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    M. Maher and G. Governatori. A Semantic Decomposition of Defeasible Logics. Proc. American National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 299–305, 1999.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    D. Makinson and K. Schlechta. Floating conclusions and zombie paths: two deep difficulties in the “directly skeptical” approach to defeasible inheritance nets. Artificial Intelligence 48 (1991): 199–209.CrossRefMathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    V. Marek and M. Truszczynski. Nonmonotonic Logic, Springer 1993.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    D. Nute. Defeasible Reasoning and Decision Support Systems. Decision Support Systems 4, 97–110, 1988.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    D. Nute. Defeasible Logic. In D.M. Gabbay, C.J. Hogger and J.A. Robinson (eds.): Handbook of Logic in Artificial Intelligence and Logic Programming Vol. 3, Oxford University Press 1994, 353–395.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    D.M. Reeves, B.N. Grosof, M.P. Wellman, and H.Y. Chan. Towards a Declarative Language for Negotiating Executable Contracts, Proc. AAAI-99 Workshop on Artificial Intelligence in Electronic Commerce, AAAI Press / MIT Press, 1999.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    D.S. Scott. Logic and Programming Languages. C.ACM 20, 634–641, 1977.zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    A. Tarski. A Lattice-theoretical Fixpoint Theorem and its Applications. Pacific Journal of Mathematics, 5, 1955, 285–309.zbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • Michael J. Maher
    • 1
  1. 1.CITGriffith UniversityNathanAustralia

Personalised recommendations