A copy of this work was available on the public web and has been preserved in the Wayback Machine. The capture dates from 2013; you can also visit <a rel="external noopener" href="http://www2.mta.ac.il/~oarieli/Papers/foiks12.pdf">the original URL</a>. The file type is <code>application/pdf</code>.
Inconsistency-Tolerance in Knowledge-Based Systems by Dissimilarities
[chapter]
<span title="">2012</span>
<i title="Springer Berlin Heidelberg">
<a target="_blank" rel="noopener" href="https://fatcat.wiki/container/2w3awgokqne6te4nvlofavy5a4" style="color: black;">Lecture Notes in Computer Science</a>
</i>
Preserved Fulltext
Distance-based reasoning is a well-known approach for defining non-monotonic and paraconsistent formalisms, which so far has been mainly used in the context of standard two-valued semantics. In this paper, we extend this approach to arbitrary denotational semantics by considering dissimilarities, a generalization of distances. Dissimilarity-based reasoning is then applied for handling inconsistency in knowledge-based systems using various non-classical logics. This includes logics defined by
<span class="external-identifiers">
<a target="_blank" rel="external noopener noreferrer" href="https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-28472-4_3">doi:10.1007/978-3-642-28472-4_3</a>
<a target="_blank" rel="external noopener" href="https://fatcat.wiki/release/uxahvy4dmbbglgrgyxt7b5ekky">fatcat:uxahvy4dmbbglgrgyxt7b5ekky</a>
</span>
more »
... ti-valued semantics, non-deterministic semantics, and possible-worlds (Kripke-style) semantics. In particular, we show that our approach allows to define a variety of inconsistency-tolerant entailment relations, and that it extends many well-studied forms of reasoning in the context of belief revision and database integration. Definition 3. A denotational semantics Example 2. Any denotational semantics S for which there is an S-contradiction, is normal. A denotational semantics S induces the following relation on T L × F L : The following proposition is easily verified. 3 Proposition 1. Let S = ⟨S, |= S ⟩ be a denotational semantics for L. Then ⟨L, ⊢ S ⟩ is a propositional logic for L.
<a target="_blank" rel="noopener" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20131019162539/http://www2.mta.ac.il/~oarieli/Papers/foiks12.pdf" title="fulltext PDF download" data-goatcounter-click="serp-fulltext" data-goatcounter-title="serp-fulltext">
<button class="ui simple right pointing dropdown compact black labeled icon button serp-button">
<i class="icon ia-icon"></i>
Web Archive
[PDF]
<div class="menu fulltext-thumbnail">
<img src="https://blobs.fatcat.wiki/thumbnail/pdf/42/26/422662c40143a24c543f0e8e8e04135d48185180.180px.jpg" alt="fulltext thumbnail" loading="lazy">
</div>
</button>
</a>
<a target="_blank" rel="external noopener noreferrer" href="https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-28472-4_3">
<button class="ui left aligned compact blue labeled icon button serp-button">
<i class="external alternate icon"></i>
springer.com
</button>
</a>