Abstract
To solve a problem one may need to combine the knowledge of several different experts. It can happen that some of the claims of one or more experts may be in conflict with the claims of other experts. There may be several such points of conflict and any claim may be involved in several different such points of conflict. In that case, the user of the knowledge of experts may prefer a certain claim to another in one conflict-point without necessarily preferring that statement in another conflict-point.
Our work constructs a framework within which the consequences of a set of such preferences (expressed as priorities among sets of statements) can be computed. We give four types of semantics for priorities, three of which are shown to be equivalent to one another. The fourth type of semantics for priorities is shown to be more cautious than the other three. In terms of these semantics for priorities, we give a function for combining knowledge from different sources such that the combined knowledge is conflict-free and satisfies all the priorities.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Explore related subjects
Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.References
Baral, C., Kraus, S., and Minker, J. (1991). Combining multiple knowledge bases.IEEE Transactions on Data and Knowledge Engineering, 3, 208–220.
Baral, C., Kraus, S., Minker, J., and Subrahmanian, V.S. (1992). Combining knowledge bases consisting of first order theories.Computational Intelligence, 8, 45–71.
Fagin, R., Ullman, J.D., and Vardi, M.Y. (1983). On the semantics of updates in databases. InProc. 7th ACM SIGACT/SIGMOD Symposium on Principles of Database Systems (pp. 352–365).
Gelfond, M. and Lifschitz, V. (1988). The Stable Model Semantics for Logic Programming. In R.A. Kowalski and K.A. Bowen, (eds.).Proc. 5th International Conference and Symposium on Logic Programming (pp. 1070–1080). Seattle, Washington.
Ryan, M. (1991). Belief revision and ordered theory presentation. In P. Dekker and M. Stokhof, (eds.)Proc. Eighth Amsterdam Colloquium on Logic.
Ryan, M. (1992).Ordered Presentation of Theories: Default Reasoning and Belief Revision. PhD thesis, Department of Computing, Imperial College.
Ryan, M. (1992). Representing defaults as sentences with reduced priority. In B. Nebel and W. Swartout, (eds.)Proc. KR'92. Morgan Kaufmann.
Subrahmanian, V.S. (1992). Amalgamating knowledge bases, Technical Report Univ. of Maryland CS-TR-2949, Department of Computer Science, University of Maryland, College Park, Md 20742. Currently being revised for publication inACM Trans. on Database Systems.
Tversky, A. and Kahneman, D. (1981). The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice.Science, 211, 453–458.
Van Gelder, A. ross, K., and Schlipf, J.S. (1988). Unfounded Sets and Well-founded Semantics for General Logic Programs. InProc. 7th Symposium on Principles of Database Systems (pp. 221–230).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Additional information
Jack Minker and Shekhar Pradhan were supported in part by the National Science Foundation grant IRI-89-16059 and Air Force Office of Scientific Research grant 91-0350. V.S. Subrahmanian was supported in part by Army Research Office grant DAAL-03-92-G-0225, Air Force Office of Scientific Research Grant F49620-93-1-0065, and NSF grant IRI-9109755.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Pradhan, S., Minker, J. & Subrahmanian, V.S. Combining databases with prioritized information. J Intell Inf Syst 4, 231–260 (1995). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00961654
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00961654