A glance at revision and updating in knowledge bases
1994; Wiley; Volume: 9; Issue: 1 Linguagem: Inglês
10.1002/int.4550090103
ISSN1098-111X
Autores Tópico(s)AI-based Problem Solving and Planning
ResumoInternational Journal of Intelligent SystemsVolume 9, Issue 1 p. 1-27 Article A glance at revision and updating in knowledge bases† Léa Sombé, Léa SombéSearch for more papers by this author Léa Sombé, Léa SombéSearch for more papers by this author First published: 1994 https://doi.org/10.1002/int.4550090103Citations: 18 † This paper is a revised version of a paper in French entitled “Révision de bases de connaissances”, which appeared in “Actes des 4èmes Journées Nationales du PRC-GDR Intelligence Artificielle”, Marseille, Oct. 19-20, 1992, Teknea, Marseille & Toulouse, France, pp. 207-238. AboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Reference 1 H. Katsuno and A. O. Mendelzon, “Propositional knowledge base revision and minimal change,” Artificial Intelligence, 52, 263– 294 (1991). 2 S. O. Hansson, “In defense of base contraction,” Synthese, 91, 239– 245 (1992). 3 P. Gärdenfors, Knowledge in Flux: Modeling the Dynamics of Epistemic States, the MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1988. 4 P. Gärdenfors, “ Belief revision: an introduction,” In P. Gärdenfors (Ed.), Belief Revision, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 1992, pp. 1– 28. 5 H. Katsuno and A. O. Mendelzon, “On the difference between updating a knowledge base and revising it,” In J. Allen, R. Fikes and E. Sandewall (Eds.), Proc. of the 2nd Inter. Conf. on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR'91), Cambridge, Mass., April 22-25, 1991, pp. 387– 394. Revised version in P. Gärdenfors (Eds.), Belief Revision, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 1992, pp. 183– 203. 6 B. Nebel, “A knowledge level analysis of belief revision,” In R. J. Brachman, H. J. Levesque and R. Reiter (Eds.), Proc. of the 1st Inter. Conf. on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR'89), Toronto, Ontario, May 15-18, 1989, pp. 301– 311. 7 B. Nebel, “ Syntax-based approaches to belief revision,” In P. Gärdenfors (Ed.), Belief Revision, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 1992, pp. 52– 88. 8 C. E. Alchourrón, P. Gärdenfors and D. Makinson, “On the logic of theory change: partial meet contraction and revision functions,” The Journal of Symbolic Logic, 50, 510– 530 (1985). 9 J. Doyle, “A truth maintenance system,” Artificial Intelligence, 12 (2), 231– 272 (1979). 10 H. Katsuno and A. O. Mendelzon, “ A unified view of propositional knowledge base updates,” In Proc. of the 11th Inter. Joint Conf. on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI'89), Detroit, MI, Aug. 20-25, 1989, pp. 269– 276. 11 M. Morreau, “ Planning from first principles,” In P. Gärdenfors (Ed.), Belief Revision, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 1992, pp. 204– 219. 12 L. Willard and L. Y. Yuan, “ The revised Gärdenfors postulates and update semantics,” (Extended abstract) In S. Abiteboul and P. C. Konellakis (Eds.), Proc. of the 3rd Inter. Conf. on Database Theory (ICDT'90), Paris, December 1990, Lecture Notes in Computer Sciences, Vol. 470, Springer-Verlag, 1990, pp. 409– 421. 13 A. S. Rao and N. Y. Foo, “Formal theories of belief revision,” In R. J. Brachman, H. J. Levesque and R. Reiter (Eds.), Proc. of the 1st Inter. Conf. on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR'89), Toronto, Ontario, May 15-18, 1989, pp. 369– 380. 14 A. S. Rao and N. Y. Foo, “ Minimal change and maximal coherence: a basis for belief revision and reasoning about actions,” In Proc. of the 11th Inter. Joint Conf. on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI'89), Detroit, Michigan, Aug. 20-25, 1989, pp. 966– 971. 15 P. Besnard and E. Laenens, “A knowledge representation perspective: Logics for paraconsistent reasoning,” Int. J. of Intelligent Systems, 9, this issue. 16 H. Rott, “Two methods of constructing contractions and revisions of knowledge systems,” J. of Philosophical Logic, 20, 149– 173 (1991). 17 D. Dubois and H. Prade, “Epistemic entrenchment and possibility logic,” Artificial Intelligence, 50, 223– 239 (1991). 18 D. Dubois, “Belief structures, possibility theory and decomposable confidence measures on finite sets,” Computers and Artificial Intelligence, 5, 403– 416 (1986). 19 M. Dalal, “ Investigations into a theory of knowledge base revision: preliminary report,” In Proc. of the 7th National Conf. on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI'88), 1988, pp. 475– 479. 20 D. K. Lewis, “Probabilities of conditionals and conditional probabilities,” The Philosophical Review, 85, 297– 315 (1976). 21 D. K. Lewis, “Counterfactuals and comparative possibility,” J. Philosophical Logic, 2, (1973). Also in W. L. Harper, R. Stalnaker and G. Pearce (Eds.), Ifs - Conditionals, Belief, Decision, Chance, and Time, D. Reidel, Dordrecht, 1981, pp. 57– 85. 22 G. Grahne, “ Updates and counterfactuals,” In J. Allen, R. Fikes and E. Sandewall (Eds.); Proc. of the 2nd Inter. Conf. on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR'91), Cambridge, Mass., April 22-25, 1991, pp. 269– 276. 23 L. Fariñas del Cerro and A. Herzig, “ An automated modal logic of elementary changes,” In P. Smets, E. H. Mamdani, D. Dubois and H. Prade (Eds.), Non-Standard Logics for Automated Reasoning, Academic Press, 1988, pp. 63– 79. 24 L. Fariñas del Cerro and A. Herzig, “Interference logic = conditional logic + frame axiom,” Int. J. of Intelligent Systems, 9, this issue. 25 M. Winslett, “ Reasoning about action using a possible models approach,” In Proc. of the 7th National Conf. on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI'88), 1988, pp. 89– 93. 26 M. Winslett, Updating Logical Databases, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 1990. 27 L. A. Zadeh, “Fuzzy sets as a basis for a theory of possibility,” Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 1, 3– 28 (1978). 28 D. Dubois and H. Prade (with the collaboration of H. Farreny, R. Martin-Clouaire and C. Testemale), Possibility Theory — an Approach to Computerized Processing of Uncertainty, Plenum Press, New York, 1988. 29 G. Shafer, A Mathematical Theory of Evidence, Princeton University Press, Princeton 30 D. Dubois and H. Prade, “A survey of belief revision and updating rules in various uncertainty models,” Int. J. of Intelligent Systems, 9, this issue. 31 D. Dubois and H. Prade, “ Belief change and possibility theory,” In P. Gärdenfors (Ed.), Belief Revision, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 1992, pp. 142– 182. 32 D. Dubois and H. Prade, “ Belief revision and updates in numerical formalisms — an overview, with new results for the possibilistic frameworks—,” In Proc. of the Inter. Joint Conf. on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI'93), Chambery, Aug. 1993, pp. 620– 625. 33 D. Dubois and H. Prade, “Evidence knowledge and belief functions,” Int. J. of Approximate Reasoning, 6, 295– 319 (1992). 34 B. Nebel, Reasoning and Revision in Hybrid Representation Systems, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 422, Springer Verlag, Berlin, 1990. 35 F. Lévy, “Revision in classical logic,” Int. J. of Intelligent Systems, 9, this issue. 36 D. Makinson and P. Gärdenfors, “ Relations between the logic of theory change and nonmonotonic logic,” In A. Fuhrmann and M. Morreau (Eds.), The Logic of Theory Change (Proc. of the Workshop, Konstanz, Germany, Oct. 1989), Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence, Vol. 465, Springer Verlag, Berlin, 1991, pp. 185– 205. 37 P. Gärdenfors, “Belief revision and nonmonotonic logic: two sides of the same coin?,” In L. C. Aiello (Ed.), Proc. of the 9th Europ. Conf. on Artificial Intelligence (ECAI'90), Stockholm, Sweden, Aug. 6-10, 1990, pp. 768– 773. 38 S. Kraus, D. Lehmann and M. Magidor, “Nonmonotonic reasoning, preferential models and cumulative logics,” Artificial Intelligence, 44 (1-2), 137– 207 (1990). 39 D. Lehmann, “What does a conditional knowledge base entail?,” in Proc. of the Inter. Conf. on (KR'91). Revised version in Artificial Intelligence, 55, 1– 60 (1992). 40 Y. Shoham, Reasoning About Change — Time and Causation from the Standpoint of Artificial Intelligence, the MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1988. 41 R. Reiter, “A logic for default reasoning,” Artificial Intelligence, 13, 81– 132 (1980). 42 Y. Moinard, “Revision and nonmonotony,” Int. J. of Intelligent Systems, 9, this issue. 43 L. Cholvy, “Database updates and transition constraints: A formula-based approach,” Int. J. of Intelligent Systems, 9, this issue. 44 R. Fagin, G. M. Kuper, J. D. Ullman and M. Y. Vardi, “ Updating logical databases,” In P. Kanellakis and F. Preparata (Eds.), Advances in Computing Research 3, JAI Press, 1986. 45 R. Fagin, J. D. Ullman and M. Y. Vardi, “ On the semantics of updates in databases,” In Proc. of the 2nd ACM Symp. on Principles of Data Base Systems, Atlanta, 1983, pp. 352– 365. 46 G. M. Kuper, J. D. Ullman, and M. Y. Vardi, “ On the equivalence of logical databases,” In Proc. of the 4th ACM Symp. on Principles of Data Base Systems, 1984. 47 A. Abiteboul and G. Grahne, “ Update semantics for incomplete databases,” In Proc. of the 11th Inter. Conf. on Very Large Data Bases, Stockholm, 1985, pp. 1– 12. 48 D. Gabbay, “N-Prolog: an extension of Prolog with hypothetical implication II,” The J. of Logic Programming, 2, 251– 283 (1985). 49 P. Gärdenfors, “The dynamics of belief systems: foundations versus coherence,” Revue Int. de Philosophie, 44, 24– 46 (1990). 50 J. Doyle, “ Reason maintenance and belief revision: foundations vs. coherence theories,” In P. Gärdenfors (Ed.), Belief Revision, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 1992, pp. 29– 51. 51 T. Dean and K. Kanazawa, “ Probabilistic causal reasoning,” In R. D. Shachter, T. S. Levitt, L. N. Kanal and J. F. Lemmer (Eds.), Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence 4, North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1990, pp. 27– 42. 52 M. O. Cordier and P. Siegel, “A temporal revision model for reasoning about world change,” in Proc. of the 3rd. Inter. Conf. on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR'92), Cambridge, MA, Oct. 27-29, 1992, pp. See also in Int. J. of Intelligent Systems, 9, this issue. 53 C. Schwind, “Revision and action,” Int. J. of Intelligent Systems, 9, this issue. 54 T. Eiter and G. Gottlob, “On the complexity of propositional knowledge base revision, updates, and counterfactuals,” Artificial Intelligence, 57, 227– 270 (1992). Citing Literature Volume9, Issue11994Pages 1-27 ReferencesRelatedInformation
Referência(s)