Katarina Britz
Ivan Varzinczak
Skip Abstract Section
Abstract
The past 25 years have seen many attempts to introduce defeasible-reasoning capabilities into a description logic setting. Many, if not most, of these attempts are based on preferential extensions of description logics, with a significant number of these, in turn, following the so-called KLM approach to defeasible reasoning initially advocated for propositional logic by Kraus, Lehmann, and Magidor. Each of these attempts has its own aim of investigating particular constructions and variants of the (KLM-style) preferential approach. Here our aim is to provide a comprehensive study of the formal foundations of preferential defeasible reasoning for description logics in the KLM tradition.
We start by investigating a notion of defeasible subsumption in the spirit of defeasible conditionals as studied by Kraus, Lehmann, and Magidor in the propositional case. In particular, we consider a natural and intuitive semantics for defeasible subsumption, and we investigate KLM-style syntactic properties for both preferential and rational subsumption. Our contribution includes two representation results linking our semantic constructions to the set of preferential and rational properties considered. Besides showing that our semantics is appropriate, these results pave the way for more effective decision procedures for defeasible reasoning in description logics. Indeed, we also analyse the problem of non-monotonic reasoning in description logics at the level of entailment and present an algorithm for the computation of rational closure of a defeasible knowledge base. Importantly, our algorithm relies completely on classical entailment and shows that the computational complexity of reasoning over defeasible knowledge bases is no worse than that of reasoning in the underlying classical DL ALC.
- F. Baader, D. Calvanese, D. McGuinness, D. Nardi, and P. Patel-Schneider (Eds.). 2007. The Description Logic Handbook: Theory, Implementation and Applications (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- F. Baader and B. Hollunder. 1993. How to prefer more specific defaults in terminological default logic. In Proceedings of the 13th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI’93), R. Bajcsy (Ed.). Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, 669--675.Google Scholar
- F. Baader and B. Hollunder. 1995. Embedding defaults into terminological knowledge representation formalisms. J. Autom. Reason. 14, 1 (1995), 149--180.Google ScholarCross Ref
- F. Baader, I. Horrocks, C. Lutz, and U. Sattler. 2017. An Introduction to Description Logic. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- A. Baltag and S. Smets. 2006. Dynamic belief revision over multi-agent plausibility models. In Proceedings of the Conference on Logic and the Foundations of Game and Decision Theory (LOFT’06), W. van der Hoek and M. Wooldridge (Eds.). University of Liverpool, 11--24.Google Scholar
- A. Baltag and S. Smets. 2008. A qualitative theory of dynamic interactive belief revision. In Proceedings of the Conference on Logic and the Foundations of Game and Decision Theory (LOFT’08) (Texts in Logic and Games), G. Bonanno, W. van der Hoek, and M. Wooldridge (Eds.). Amsterdam University Press, 13--60.Google Scholar
- S. Benferhat, D. Dubois, and H. Prade. 1999. Possibilistic and standard probabilistic semantics of conditional knowledge bases. J. Logic Comput. 9, 6 (1999), 873--895.Google ScholarCross Ref
- P. Bonatti, M. Faella, I. M. Petrova, and L. Sauro. 2015. A new semantics for overriding in description logics. Artific. Intell. 222 (2015), 1--48.Google ScholarDigital Library
- P. Bonatti, M. Faella, and L. Sauro. 2011. Defeasible inclusions in low-complexity DLs. J. Artific. Intell. Res. 42 (2011), 719--764.Google ScholarDigital Library
- P. Bonatti, C. Lutz, and F. Wolter. 2009. The complexity of circumscription in description logic. J. Artific. Intell. Res. 35 (2009), 717--773.Google ScholarDigital Library
- P. Bonatti and L. Sauro. 2017. On the logical properties of the nonmonotonic description logic DL. Artific. Intell. 248 (2017), 85--111.Google ScholarDigital Library
- P. A. Bonatti. 2019. Rational closure for all description logics. Artific. Intell. 274 (2019), 197--223. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.artint.2019.04.001Google ScholarDigital Library
- R. Booth, G. Casini, T. Meyer, and I. Varzinczak. 2015. On the entailment problem for a logic of typicality. In Proceedings of the 24th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI’15). 2805--2811.Google Scholar
- R. Booth, G. Casini, T. Meyer, and I. Varzinczak. 2019. On rational entailment for propositional typicality logic. Artific. Intell. 277 (2019). DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.artint.2019.103178Google ScholarDigital Library
- R. Booth, T. Meyer, and I. Varzinczak. 2012. PTL: A propositional typicality logic. In Proceedings of the 13th European Conference on Logics in Artificial Intelligence (JELIA’12) (LNCS), L. Fariñas del Cerro, A. Herzig, and J. Mengin (Eds.). Springer, 107--119.Google Scholar
- R. Booth, T. Meyer, and I. Varzinczak. 2013. A propositional typicality logic for extending rational consequence. In Trends in Belief Revision and Argumentation Dynamics, E. L. Fermé, D. M. Gabbay, and G. R. Simari (Eds.). Studies in Logic—Logic and Cognitive Systems, Vol. 48. King’s College Publications, 123--154.Google Scholar
- R. Booth and J. B. Paris. 1998. A note on the rational closure of knowledge bases with both positive and negative knowledge. J. Logic Lang. Info. 7, 2 (1998), 165--190.Google ScholarDigital Library
- C. Boutilier. 1994. Conditional logics of normality: A modal approach. Artific. Intell. 68, 1 (1994), 87--154.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Loris Bozzato, Thomas Eiter, and Luciano Serafini. 2018. Enhancing context knowledge repositories with justifiable exceptions. Artif. Intell. 257 (2018), 72--126. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.artint.2017.12.005Google ScholarCross Ref
- Loris Bozzato, Thomas Eiter, and Luciano Serafini. 2019. Reasoning with justifiable exceptions in ℰ⊥ contextualized knowledge repositories. In Description Logic, Theory Combination, and All That—Essays Dedicated to Franz Baader on the Occasion of His 60th Birthday (Lecture Notes in Computer Science), Carsten Lutz, Uli Sattler, Cesare Tinelli, Anni-Yasmin Turhan, and Frank Wolter (Eds.), Vol. 11560. Springer, 110--134. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-22102-7_5Google Scholar
- Loris Bozzato and Luciano Serafini. 2013. Materialization calculus for contexts in the semantic web. In Proceedings of the 26th International Workshop on Description Logics (CEUR Workshop Proceedings), Thomas Eiter, Birte Glimm, Yevgeny Kazakov, and Markus Krötzsch (Eds.), Vol. 1014. CEUR-WS.org, 552--572. http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-1014/paper_51.pdf.Google Scholar
- G. Brewka. 1987. The logic of inheritance in frame systems. In Proceedings of the 10th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI’87). Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, 483--488.Google Scholar
- K. Britz, G. Casini, T. Meyer, K. Moodley, U. Sattler, and I. Varzinczak. 2015. Rational Defeasible Reasoning for Expressive Description Logics. Technical Report. Centre for Artificial Intelligence Research (CAIR), South Africa.Retrieved from https://www.cair.org.za/sites/default/files/2019-08/TR-DefeasibleSubsumption.pdf.Google Scholar
- K. Britz, G. Casini, T. Meyer, K. Moodley, U. Sattler, and I. Varzinczak. 2017. Rational Defeasible Reasoning for Description Logics. Technical Report. University of Cape Town, South Africa. Retrieved from https://tinyurl.com/yc55y7ts.Google Scholar
- K. Britz, G. Casini, T. Meyer, and I. Varzinczak. 2013. Preferential role restrictions. In Proceedings of the 26th International Workshop on Description Logics. 93--106.Google Scholar
- K. Britz, J. Heidema, and W. Labuschagne. 2009. Semantics for dual preferential entailment. J. Philos. Logic 38 (2009), 433--446.Google ScholarCross Ref
- K. Britz, J. Heidema, and T. Meyer. 2008. Semantic preferential subsumption. In Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR’08), J. Lang and G. Brewka (Eds.). AAAI Press/MIT Press, 476--484.Google Scholar
- K. Britz, J. Heidema, and T. Meyer. 2009. Modelling object typicality in description logics. In Proceedings of the 22nd Australasian Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (LNAI’09), A. Nicholson and X. Li (Eds.). Springer, 506--516.Google Scholar
- K. Britz, T. Meyer, and I. Varzinczak. 2011. Preferential reasoning for modal logics. Electron. Notes Theor. Comput. Sci. 278 (2011), 55--69. Proceedings of the 7th Workshop on Methods for Modalities (M4M’2011).Google ScholarDigital Library
- K. Britz, T. Meyer, and I. Varzinczak. 2011. Semantic foundation for preferential description logics. In Proceedings of the 24th Australasian Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (LNAI’11), D. Wang and M. Reynolds (Eds.). Springer, 491--500.Google Scholar
- K. Britz, T. Meyer, and I. Varzinczak. 2012. Normal modal preferential consequence. In Proceedings of the 25th Australasian Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (LNAI’12), M. Thielscher and D. Zhang (Eds.). Springer, 505--516.Google Scholar
- K. Britz and I. Varzinczak. 2013. Defeasible modalities. In Proceedings of the 14th Conference on Theoretical Aspects of Rationality and Knowledge (TARK’13). 49--60.Google Scholar
- K. Britz and I. Varzinczak. 2016. Introducing role defeasibility in description logics. In Proceedings of the 15th European Conference on Logics in Artificial Intelligence (JELIA’16) (LNCS), L. Michael and A.C. Kakas (Eds.). Springer, 174--189.Google Scholar
- K. Britz and I. Varzinczak. 2017. Context-based defeasible subsumption for . In Proceedings of the 13th International Symposium on Logical Formalizations of Commonsense Reasoning.Google Scholar
- K. Britz and I. Varzinczak. 2017. Toward defeasible . In Proceedings of the 30th International Workshop on Description Logics.Google Scholar
- K. Britz and I. Varzinczak. 2018. From KLM-style conditionals to defeasible modalities, and back. J. Appl. Non-class. Logics 28, 1 (2018), 92--121.Google ScholarCross Ref
- K. Britz and I. Varzinczak. 2018. Preferential accessibility and preferred worlds. J. Logic, Lang. Info. 27, 2 (2018), 133--155.Google ScholarDigital Library
- K. Britz and I. Varzinczak. 2018. Rationality and context in defeasible subsumption. In Proceedings of the 10th International Symposium on Foundations of Information and Knowledge Systems (FoIKS’18) (LNCS), F. Ferrarotti and S. Woltran (Eds.). Springer, 114--132.Google Scholar
- K. Britz and I. Varzinczak. 2019. Contextual rational closure for defeasible . Ann. Math. Artific. Intell. 87, 1--2 (2019), 83--108.Google Scholar
- M. Cadoli, F. Donini, and M. Schaerf. 1990. Closed world reasoning in hybrid systems. In Proceedings of the 5th International Symposium on Methodologies for Intelligent Systems (ISMIS’90), Z. W. Ras, M. Zemankova, and M. L. Emrich (Eds.). Elsevier, 474--481.Google Scholar
- G. Casini, E. Fermé, T. Meyer, and I. Varzinczak. 2018. A semantic perspective on belief change in a preferential non-monotonic framework. In Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR’18), M. Thielscher, F. Toni, and F. Wolter (Eds.). AAAI Press, 220--229. Retrieved from https://aaai.org/ocs/index.php/KR/KR18/paper/view/18071.Google Scholar
- G. Casini and T. Meyer. 2017. Belief change in a preferential non-monotonic framework. In Proceedings of the 26th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI’17), C. Sierra (Ed.). ijcai.org, 929--935. DOI:https://doi.org/10.24963/ijcai.2017/129Google Scholar
- G. Casini, T. Meyer, K. Moodley, and R. Nortjé. 2014. Relevant closure: A new form of defeasible reasoning for description logics. In Proceedings of the 14th European Conference on Logics in Artificial Intelligence (JELIA’14). Number 8761 in LNCS. Springer, 92--106.Google Scholar
- G. Casini, T. Meyer, K. Moodley, U. Sattler, and I. Varzinczak. 2015. Introducing defeasibility into OWL ontologies. In Proceedings of the 14th International Semantic Web Conference (ISWC’15) (LNCS), M. Arenas, O. Corcho, E. Simperl, M. Strohmaier, M. d’Aquin, K. Srinivas, P. T. Groth, M. Dumontier, J. Heflin, K. Thirunarayan, and S. Staab (Eds.). Springer, 409--426.Google Scholar
- G. Casini and U. Straccia. 2010. Rational closure for defeasible description logics. In Proceedings of the 12th European Conference on Logics in Artificial Intelligence (JELIA’10) (LNCS), T. Janhunen and I. Niemelä (Eds.). Springer-Verlag, 77--90.Google Scholar
- G. Casini and U. Straccia. 2011. Defeasible inheritance-based description logics. In Proceedings of the 22nd International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI’11). AAAI Press, 813--818. DOI:https://doi.org/10.5591/978-1-57735-516-8/IJCAI11-142Google Scholar
- G. Casini and U. Straccia. 2012. Lexicographic closure for defeasible description logics. In Proceedings of the 8th Australasian Ontology Workshop (AOW’12) (CEUR Workshop Proceedings). CEUR, 28--39.Google Scholar
- G. Casini and U. Straccia. 2013. Defeasible inheritance-based description logics. J. Artific. Intell. Res. 48 (2013), 415--473.Google ScholarDigital Library
- G. Casini, U. Straccia, and T. Meyer. 2019. A polynomial time subsumption algorithm for nominal safe ELO⊥ under rational closure. Info. Sci. 501 (2019), 588--620. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ins.2018.09.037Google ScholarDigital Library
- B. Chellas. 1980. Modal Logic: An Introduction. Cambridge University Press.Google ScholarCross Ref
- F. M. Donini, D. Nardi, and R. Rosati. 2002. Description logics of minimal knowledge and negation as failure. ACM Trans. Comput. Logic 3, 2 (2002), 177--225.Google ScholarDigital Library
- D. Dubois, J. Lang, and H. Prade. 1994. Possibilistic logic. In Handbook of Logic in Artificial Intelligence and Logic Programming, D. M. Gabbay, C. J. Hogger, and J. A. Robinson (Eds.). Vol. 3. Oxford University Press, 439--513.Google Scholar
- P. Gärdenfors and D. Makinson. 1994. Nonmonotonic inference based on expectations. Artific. Intell. 65, 2 (1994), 197--245.Google ScholarDigital Library
- L. Giordano, V. Gliozzi, N. Olivetti, and G. L. Pozzato. 2007. Preferential description logics. In Proceedings of the Conference on Logic for Programming, Artificial Intelligence, and Reasoning (LPAR’07) (LNAI), N. Dershowitz and A. Voronkov (Eds.). Springer, 257--272.Google Scholar
- L. Giordano, V. Gliozzi, N. Olivetti, and G. L. Pozzato. 2008. Reasoning about typicality in preferential description logics. In Proceedings of the 11th European Conference on Logics in Artificial Intelligence (JELIA’08) (LNAI), S. Hölldobler, C. Lutz, and H. Wansing (Eds.). Springer, 192--205.Google Scholar
- L. Giordano, V. Gliozzi, N. Olivetti, and G. L. Pozzato. 2009. Analytic tableaux calculi for KLM logics of nonmonotonic reasoning. ACM Trans. Computat. Logic 10, 3 (2009), 18:1–18:47.Google Scholar
- L. Giordano, V. Gliozzi, N. Olivetti, and G. L. Pozzato. 2009. : A preferential extension of description logics. Fundamenta Informaticae 96, 3 (2009), 341--372.Google ScholarDigital Library
- L. Giordano, V. Gliozzi, N. Olivetti, and G. L. Pozzato. 2012. A minimal model semantics for nonmonotonic reasoning. In Proceedings of the 13th European Conference on Logics in Artificial Intelligence (JELIA’12) (LNCS), L. Fariñas del Cerro, A. Herzig, and J. Mengin (Eds.). Springer, 228--241.Google Scholar
- L. Giordano, V. Gliozzi, N. Olivetti, and G. L. Pozzato. 2013. A non-monotonic Description Logic for reasoning about typicality. Artific. Intell. 195 (2013), 165--202.Google ScholarDigital Library
- L. Giordano, V. Gliozzi, N. Olivetti, and G. L. Pozzato. 2015. Semantic characterization of rational closure: From propositional logic to description logics. Artific. Intell. 226 (2015), 1--33.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Laura Giordano, Valentina Gliozzi, Nicola Olivetti, and Gian Luca Pozzato. 2013. Minimal model semantics and rational closure in description logics. In Informal Proceedings of the 26th International Workshop on Description Logics. 168--180. Retrieved from http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-1014/paper_5.pdf.Google Scholar
- Laura Giordano, Valentina Gliozzi, Nicola Olivetti, and Gian Luca Pozzato. 2014. Rational closure in SHIQ. In Informal Proceedings of the 27th International Workshop on Description Logics. 543--555. Retrieved from http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-1193/paper_20.pdf.Google Scholar
- Laura Giordano, Valentina Gliozzi, Gian Luca Pozzato, and Riccardo Renzulli. 2017. An efficient reasoner for description logics of typicality and rational closure. In Proceedings of the 30th International Workshop on Description Logics (CEUR Workshop Proceedings), Alessandro Artale, Birte Glimm, and Roman Kontchakov (Eds.), Vol. 1879. CEUR-WS.org. Retrieved from http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-1879/paper25.pdf.Google Scholar
- G. Governatori. 2004. Defeasible description logics. In Proceedings of the Conference on Rules and Rule Markup Languages for the Semantic Web (LNCS), G. Antoniou and H. Boley (Eds.). Springer, 98--112.Google ScholarCross Ref
- B. N. Grosof, I. Horrocks, R. Volz, and S. Decker. 2003. Description logic programs: Combining logic programs with description logic. In Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on World Wide Web (WWW’03). ACM, 48--57.Google Scholar
- S. Heymans and D. Vermeir. 2002. A defeasible ontology language. In Proceedings of the On the Move Confederated International Conferences (CoopIS/DOA/ODBASE’02) (LNCS), R. Meersman and Z. Tari (Eds.). Springer, 1033--1046.Google Scholar
- S. Kraus, D. Lehmann, and M. Magidor. 1990. Nonmonotonic reasoning, preferential models and cumulative logics. Artific. Intell. 44 (1990), 167--207.Google ScholarDigital Library
- D. Lehmann. 1989. What does a conditional knowledge base entail? In Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR’89), R. Brachman and H. Levesque (Eds.). 212--222.Google Scholar
- D. Lehmann. 1995. Another perspective on default reasoning. Ann. Math. Artific. Intell. 15, 1 (1995), 61--82.Google ScholarCross Ref
- D. Lehmann and M. Magidor. 1992. What does a conditional knowledge base entail? Artific. Intell. 55 (1992), 1--60.Google ScholarDigital Library
- T. Lukasiewicz. 2008. Expressive probabilistic description logics. Artific. Intell. 172, 6--7 (2008), 852--883.Google ScholarDigital Library
- K. Moodley, T. Meyer, and I. Varzinczak. 2011. Root justifications for ontology repair. In Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Web Reasoning and Rule Systems (RR’11) (LNCS), S. Rudolph and C. Gutierrez (Eds.). Springer, 275--280.Google Scholar
- L. Padgham and T. Zhang. 1993. A terminological logic with defaults: A definition and an application. In Proceedings of the 13th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI’93), R. Bajcsy (Ed.). Morgan Kaufmann, 662--668.Google Scholar
- M. Pensel and A.-Y. Turhan. 2017. Including quantification in defeasible reasoning for the description logic . In Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Logic Programming and Nonmonotonic Reasoning (LPNMR’17) (LNCS), M. Balduccini and T. Janhunen (Eds.). Springer, 78--84.Google ScholarCross Ref
- M. Pensel and A.-Y. Turhan. 2018. Reasoning in the defeasible description logic —Computing standard inferences under rational and relevant semantics. Int. J. Approx. Reason. 103 (2018), 28--70.Google ScholarCross Ref
- G. Qi, J. Z. Pan, and Q. Ji. 2007. Extending description logics with uncertainty reasoning in possibilistic logic. In Proceedings of the 9th European Conference on Symbolic and Quantitative Approaches to Reasoning with Uncertainty (LNAI), K. Mellouli (Ed.). Springer, 828--839.Google Scholar
- J. Quantz and V. Royer. 1992. A preference semantics for defaults in terminological logics. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR’92). 294--305.Google Scholar
- J. Quantz and M. Ryan. 1993. Preferential default description logics. Technical Report. TU Berlin. Retrieved from www.tu-berlin.de/fileadmin/fg53/KIT-Reports/r110.pdf.Google Scholar
- R. Reiter. 1980. A logic for default reasoning. Artific. Intell. 13, 1--2 (1980), 81--132.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Cleyton M. O. Rodrigues, Eunice Palmeira da Silva, Fred Freitas, Italo Jose da Silva Oliveira, and Ivan Varzinczak. 2019. LEGIS: A proposal to handle legal normative exceptions and leverage inference proofs readability. J. Appl. Logics 6, 5 (2019), 755--780. Retrieved from https://collegepublications.co.uk/ifcolog/?00034.Google Scholar
- H. Rott. 2001. Change, Choice and Inference: A Study of Belief Revision and Nonmonotonic Reasoning. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- K. Schild. 1991. A correspondence theory for terminological logics: Preliminary report. In Proceedings of the 12th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI’91). 466--471.Google ScholarDigital Library
- S. Schlobach and R. Cornet. 2003. Non-standard reasoning services for the debugging of description logic terminologies. In Proceedings of the 18th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI’03). 355--362.Google Scholar
- K. Sengupta, A. Alfa Krisnadhi, and P. Hitzler. 2011. Local closed world semantics: Grounded circumscription for OWL. In Proceedings of the 10th International Semantic Web Conference (ISWC’11) (LNCS), L. Aroyo, C. Welty, H. Alani, J. Taylor, A. Bernstein, L. Kagal, N. Noy, and E. Blomqvist (Eds.). Springer, 617--632.Google Scholar
- Y. Shoham. 1988. Reasoning about Change: Time and Causation from the Standpoint of Artificial Intelligence. MIT Press.Google ScholarDigital Library
- U. Straccia. 1993. Default inheritance reasoning in hybrid KL-ONE-style logics. In Proceedings of the 13th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI’93), R. Bajcsy (Ed.). Morgan Kaufmann, 676--681.Google Scholar
- I. J. Varzinczak. 2018. A note on a description logic of concept and role typicality for defeasible reasoning over ontologies. Logica Universalis 12, 3--4 (2018), 297--325.Google ScholarCross Ref
Index Terms
- Principles of KLM-style Defeasible Description Logics
Recommendations
Analytic tableaux calculi for KLM logics of nonmonotonic reasoning
We present tableau calculi for the logics of nonmonotonic reasoning defined by Kraus, Lehmann and Magidor (KLM). We give a tableau proof procedure for all KLM logics, namely preferential, loop-cumulative, cumulative, and rational logics. Our calculi are ...
Contextual rational closure for defeasible $\mathcal {ALC}$
AbstractDescription logics have been extended in a number of ways to support defeasible reasoning in the KLM tradition. Such features include preferential or rational defeasible concept inclusion, and defeasible roles in complex concept descriptions. ...
Preferential Reasoning for Modal Logics
Modal logic is the foundation for a versatile and well-established class of knowledge representation formalisms in artificial intelligence. Enriching modal logics with non-monotonic reasoning capabilities such as preferential reasoning as developed by ...
Comments