Embedding defeasible logic into logic programming

Antoniou, Grigoris; Billington, David P.; Governatori, Guido; Maher, Michael J.

doi:10.1017/s1471068406002778

Cited by 66 publications

(34 citation statements)

References 32 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This theory was used in all the examples in this paper. The other argumentation theory was intended to show how ASP DA can capture other approaches to defeasible reasoning; in this case the defeasible logic of [1].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…As yet another example, this section develops an argumentation theory that captures the reasoning in Defeasible Logic of [1].…”

Section: Defeasible Logic [1]mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…One is an adaptation of GCLP [14,20] to ASPDA, a theory that is used in all examples throughout this paper. Another is an argumentation theory that captures Defeasible Logic [1]. Although Defeasible Logic (as all other theories of defeasible reasoning up until now) does not support head-disjuncts in the rules, it is an apt illustration of ASPDA as a unifying framework that is capable of capturing much of the prior work.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Defeasibility in Answer Set Programs via Argumentation Theories

Wan

Kifer

Grosof

2010

Web Reasoning and Rule Systems

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Defeasible reasoning has been studied extensively in the last two decades and many different and dissimilar approaches are currently on the table. This multitude of ideas has made the field hard to navigate and the different techniques hard to compare. Our earlier work on Logic Programming with Defaults and Argumentation Theories (LPDA) introduced a degree of unification into the approaches that rely on the well-founded semantics. The present work takes this idea further and introduces ASPDA-a unifying framework for defeasibility of disjunctive logic programs under the Answer Set Programming (ASP). Since the well-founded and the answer set semantics underlie almost all existing approaches to defeasible reasoning in Logic Programming, LPDA and ASPDA together capture most of those approaches. In addition to AS-PDA, we obtained a number of interesting and non-trivial results. First, we show that ASPDA is reducible to ordinary ASP programs, albeit at the cost of exponential blowup in the number of rules. Second, we study reducibility of ASPDA to the non-disjunctive case and show that head-cycle-free ASPDA programs reduce to the non-disjunctive casesimilarly to head-cycle-free ASP programs, but through a more complex transformation. The blowup in the program size is linear in this case.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…As yet another example, this section develops an argumentation theory that captures the reasoning in Defeasible Logic of [1].…”

Section: Defeasible Logic [1]mentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Defeasibility in Answer Set Programs via Argumentation Theories

Wan

Kifer

Grosof

2010

Web Reasoning and Rule Systems

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…FCL was introduced in (Governatori, 2005) for the formal analysis of business contracts. FCL is a combination of an efficient non-monotonic formalism (defeasible logic (Antoniou et al, 2001(Antoniou et al, , 2006) and a deontic logic of violations . This particular combination allows us to represent exceptions as well as the ability to capture violations, the obligations resulting from the violations, and the reparations.…”

Section: Formal Contract Logic (Fcl)mentioning

confidence: 99%

The Journey to Business Process Compliance

Governatori¹,

Sadiq

Handbook of Research on Business Process Modeling

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

It is a typical scenario that many organisations have their business processes specified independently of their business obligations (which includes contractual obligations to business partners, as well as obligations a business has to fulfil against regulations and industry standards). This is because of the lack of guidelines and tools that facilitate derivation of processes from contracts but also because of the traditional mindset of treating contracts separately from business processes. This chapter will provide a solution to one specific problem that arises from this situation, namely the lack of mechanisms to check whether business processes are compliant with business contracts. The chapter begins by defining the space for business process compliance and the eco-system for ensuring that process are compliant. The key point is that compliance is a relationship between two sets of specifications: the specifications for executing a business process and the specifications regulating a business. The central part of the chapter focuses on a logic based formalism for describing both the semantics of normative specifications and the semantics of compliance checking procedures.

show abstract

“…We use the approach proposed in [13], [14], to perform reasoning over a defeasible theory. According to this, we translate a defeasible theory D into a logic program P(D), and we use a logic metaprogram that simulates the proof theory of the formalism that extents defeasible logic, to reason over the defeasible theory.…”

Section: Extension Of Defeasible Logic With Modalitiesmentioning

confidence: 99%