Defeasible logic in N3 Rules?

• From: Jeff Thompson <jeff@thefirst.org>
• Date: Sat, 22 Mar 2008 11:08:18 -0700
• To: cwm talk <public-cwm-talk@w3.org>
• Message-ID: <47E54B12.80103@thefirst.org>

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

Received on Saturday, 22 March 2008 18:08:55 UTC