LP Semantics (non-monotonicity) in Usage Scenarios?

How would you use non-mon (MMS/LP) features in the three usage
scenarios in the draft charter?  Each scenario includes the merging of
rulesets created without knowledge of what they would be merged with.
I don't see how you can do that safely with a non-monotonic logic.  If
a drug-interaction rulebase relies on any kind of non-mon feature,
then it's quite possible to give incorrect results when the pharmacy
merges it with another drug rulebase.

This doesn't exactly require non-mon to be out of scope, but it seems
to justify a monotonic logic (eg FOL) as the primary deliverable.

      -- sandro