- From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2007 10:27:38 +0000
- To: dirk.colaert@agfa.com
- Cc: wangxiao@musc.edu, "'w3c semweb hcls'" <public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org>, public-semweb-lifesci-request@w3.org
On Jan 12, 2007, at 9:36 AM, dirk.colaert@agfa.com wrote: > Recently I had an interesting conversation with Werner Cuesters, > professor in Bufallo and colleague of Barry Smith. He has some > theory about ontology maintenance and versioning and it considers > both "classes" and "instances". Both can change either because you > made en error, either you view on the world changed, either because > the world changed . It turns out that you can only handle changes > if you know for each change exactly what de reason of the change > was. That reason should be documented in the system. [snip] The standard lingo for this is that a change to the knowledge base due to a change in the *world* is called an *update* whereas a change in your knowledge base due to a change in *your knowledge* of the (current static) world is called a *revision*. The locus classicus for this, IMHO, is: <http://citeseer.ist.psu.edu/417296.html> Following there model theoretic accounts, there is a spate of work defining reasoning services that compute the updated or revisied knowledge base given a proposed update or revision. E.g., recently: <http://lat.inf.tu-dresden.de/~clu/papers/archive/kr06c.pdf> The utility of model oriented revision and update for expressive logics is, IMHO, not fully established, though it is conceptually useful in my experience. There is, of course, a large chunk of work on revising (and even updating) belief *bases*, that is, attending primarily to the *asserted* set of formulae. Hope this helps. Cheers, Bijan.
Received on Friday, 12 January 2007 10:27:44 UTC