Re: Defeasible logic in N3 Rules?

Thanks for the reply. I'll ask my question in N3 code with comments...

# Suppose you have a functional property:
@prefix owl: <http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#>.
@keywords is, of, a.
inventor a owl:FunctionalProperty.

# and you have two different assertions using this property:
VintCert says {WorldWideWeb inventor TimBernersLee}.
BillClinton says {WorldWideWeb inventor AlGore}.

# which assert different results so that FunctionalProperty should not merge them:
TimBernersLee owl:differentFrom AlGore.
AlGore owl:differentFrom TimBernersLee.

# I assume you are saying that you could prioritize:
VintCert moreTrustedThan BillClinton.

# so that you could have a rule to resolve the conflict:
@forAll :s, :p, :o1, :o2.
{?source1 says {:s :p :o1}.
  ?source2 says {:s :p :o2}.
  :o1 owl:differentFrom :o2.
  :p a owl:FunctionalProperty.
  ?source1 moreTrustedThan ?source2.} => {:s :p :o1}.


Using --think in cwm, as expected this gives only one conclusion:
:WorldWideWeb :inventor :TimBernersLee.

Is this how you would handle prioritizing conflicting functional properties?
Has someone worked up a rule suite along these lines?

Thanks for any help,
- Jeff

Tim Berners-Lee wrote:
 > Jeff,
 >
 > I have always held out for the design goal that two sets of rules, each
 > of which is useful in its own local domain, can be combined into a large
 > set.  This requires monotonicity.   Ben Grosof and I have argued about
 > this for years, as his systems (like sweetjess) typically rely on the
 > sort of prioritization you describe.  In fact, if you have a given set
 > of the rules with priorities you can always compile them down to a
 > nested expression in monotonic logic.   the problem is in an open world
 > like the web, you never know all the rules.  In a non-mon world, you
 > can't really do anything as you don't know if somewhere something might
 > be out-prioritizing you.   So long as you exlictly close the world, by
 > saying which data sources and rulesets are relevant, then you can talk
 > about defaults and priorities - and negation as failure.  We have called
 > this 'scoped' negation as failure.
 >
 > Tim
 >
 > On 2008-03 -22, at 14:08, Jeff Thompson wrote:
 >
 >>
 >> 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 Wednesday, 26 March 2008 05:03:36 UTC