Advertisement

Specification morphisms for nonmonotonic knowledge systems

  • C. K. MacNish
  • Grigoris Antoniou
Knowledge Representation and Reasoning
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1342)

Abstract

Conservative extensions of (classical) logical theories play an important role in software engineering, because they provide a formal basis for program refinement and guarantee the integrity and transparency of modules and objects. Similarly specification morphisms play a central role for information hiding and combining modules. Surprisingly, while the use of nonmonotonic theories for describing knowledge systems which may contain incomplete or uncertain data has been advocated for some time now, the above concepts have yet to be applied in this area. The aim of this work is to develop and apply analogues of these concepts in a nonmonotonic context. This paper builds on previous results, which focus on conservative extensions, extending the ideas to the more general case of specification morphisms.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    G. Antoniou, C. K. MacNish and N. Y. Foo. Conservative Expansion Concepts for Default Theories. In Proc. PRICAI'96, Springer 1996, LNAI 1114, 522–533Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    J.P. Delgrande, T. Schaub and W.K. Jackson. Alternative Approaches to default logic. Artificial Intelligence 70 (1994): 167–237Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    H. Ehrig and B. Mahr. Fundamentals of Algebraic Specification Vol. 2. Springer 1990Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    W. Lukaszewicz. Considerations of default logic: an alternative approach. Computational Intelligence 4,1 (1988): 1–16Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    C. MacNish. Hierarchical default logic. In Symbolic and Quantitative Approaches to Uncertainty: Proc. European Conference. Springer-Verlag Lecture Notes in Computer Science 548, pp 246–253, 1991Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    A. Mikitiuk and M. Truszczynski. Constrained and rational default logics. In Proc. International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence 1995Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    R. Reiter. A logic for default reasoning. Artificial Intelligence 13 (1980): 81–132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    W.M. Turski and T.S.E. Maibaum. The Specification of Computer Programs. Addison-Wesley, Reading Massachusetts, 1987Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1997

Authors and Affiliations

  • C. K. MacNish
    • 1
  • Grigoris Antoniou
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of Western AustraliaNedlandsAustralia
  2. 2.School of Computing & Information TechnologyGriffith UniversityAustralia

Personalised recommendations