Uncertainty and Conflict Handling in the ATT-Meta Context-Based System for Metaphorical Reasoning [chapter]

John A. Barnden
2001 Lecture Notes in Computer Science  
At CONTEXT'99, the author described the ATT-Meta context-based system for (a) reasoning uncertainly about agents' beliefs and (b) performing some of the uncertain reasoning needed for the understanding of metaphorical language. ATT-Meta's handling of uncertainty is qualitative, and includes provisions for adjudicating conflicts between different lines of reasoning. But most of the detail on conflict-handling given in the earlier paper concerned conflicts arising for the special requirements of
more » ... a). Furthermore, there have been major recent changes in the conflict-handling approach. The present paper provides a detailed account of major parts of the current approach, stressing how it operates in metaphorical reasoning. In concentrating on uncertainty-handling, this paper does not seek to repeat the justifications given elsewhere for ATT-Meta's approach to metaphor. Acknowledgment The research is being supported by grant GR/M64208 from the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council of the U.K. © a,b¡ , b,c,d¡ , a,b,e,f¡ , k¡ b,e¡ , a,b,e,f,g¡ , b,c,d¡ , k,l¡ , m¡¡ Even though one member of FSS2, namely a,b,e¡ , is a (proper) subset of a member of FSS1, the conditions for FSS2 being more specific still hold, because at least one member, in fact three members, of FSS2 are not subsets of any member of FSS1. Notice also that FSS1 and FSS2 can intersect: b,c,d¡ is a member of both. In fact, an extreme case of this, which can arise in practice, is that FSS2 is more specific than FSS1 even when FSS1 is just a proper subset of FSS2, i.e. they contain the same factsets except that FSS2 has at least one more. An example: FSS1 = © a,b¡ , b,c,d¡ ¡ FSS2 = © a,b¡ , b,c,d¡ , a,c¡ ¡
doi:10.1007/3-540-44607-9_2 fatcat:oolieqmqqjdujn3mgyc5kxg6pe