Defeasible logic in N3 Rules?

Has there been any thought about resolving conflicting conclusions in N3 Rules?
This paper makes a good case for defeasible logic which lets you prioritize rules
which may produce conflicting conclusions.
http://iskp.csd.auth.gr/publications/DKE-Kontopoulos.pdf

Specifically, has there been thought of a non-monotonic version of log:implies
which allows a superiority relation among rules?

- Jeff