Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Analysing rational properties of change operators based on forward chaining

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Transactions and Change in Logic Databases (DYNAMICS 1997)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNCS,volume 1472))

Abstract

We propose an abstract framework to analyse the rationality of change operators defined in a syntactical way. More precisely we propose “syntactical” postulates of rationality stemming from AGM ones. Then we introduce five change operators based on forward chaining. Finally we apply our abstract framework to analyse the rationality of our operators.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. C.E. Alchourrón, P. Gärdenfors, and D. Makinson. On the logic of theory change: partial meet contraction and revision functions. Journal of Symbolic Logic, 50:510–530, 1985.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  2. C. Baral, S. Kraus, J. Minker and V.S. Subrahmanian. Combining knowledge bases consisting of first order theories. Computational Intelligence, 80:45–71, 1992.

    Google Scholar 

  3. H. Bezzazi and R. Pino Pérez. Rational transitivity and its models. In Proc. of the Twenty-Sixth International Symposium on Multiple-Valued Logic, Santiago de Compostela, Spain, May, 1996, pp. 160–165, IEEE Computer Society Press.

    Google Scholar 

  4. H. Bezzazi, D. Makinson, and R. Pino Pérez. Beyond rational monotony: some strong non-horn rules for nonmonotonic inference relations. Journal of Logic and Computation, 7:605–631, 1997.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  5. M. Dalal. Investigations into a theory of knowledge base revision: Preliminary report. In Proc. of the Seventh National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI'88), pp. 475–479, 1988.

    Google Scholar 

  6. C. Damasio, W. Nedjdl, and L. M. Pereira. Revise: An extended logic programming system for revising knowledge bases. In Proc. of the 4th International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning, pp. 607–618, Morgan Kaufmann, 1994.

    Google Scholar 

  7. A. Darwiche, and J. Pearl. On the logic of iterated belief revision. Artificial Intelligence, 89:1–29, 1997.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  8. T. Eiter and G. Gottlob. On the complexity of propositional knowledge base revision, updates and counterfactuals. In Proc. of 11th Symposium on Principles of Database Systems, pp. 261–273, ACM Press, 1992.

    Google Scholar 

  9. R. Fagin, G. Kuper, J.D. Ullman, and M.Y. Vardi. Updating logical databases. Advances in Computing Research, 3:1–18, 1986.

    Google Scholar 

  10. M. Freund and D. Lehmann. Belief revision and rational inference. Technical Report 94-16, Institute of Computer Science, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem. 1994.

    Google Scholar 

  11. A. Fuhrmann. Theory contraction through base contraction. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 20:175–203, 1991.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  12. P. Gärdenfors. Knowledge in Flux: modeling the dynamics of epistemic states. MIT press, Cambridge, MA, 1988.

    Google Scholar 

  13. P. Gärdenfors and D. Makinson. Relations between the logic of theory change and nonmonotonic logic. In The Logic of Theory Change, Workshop, Konstanz, FRG, Octuber 1989, pages 185–205. Springer-Verlag, 1989. Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence 465.

    Google Scholar 

  14. S.O. Hansson. Theory contraction and base contraction unified. Journal of Symbolic Logic, 58:602–625, 1993.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  15. S.O. Hansson. Reversing the Levi identity. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 22:637–669, 1993.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  16. H. Katsuno and A.O. Mendelzon. Propositional knowledge base revision and minimal change. Artificial Intelligence, 52:263–294, 1991.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  17. H. Katsuno and A.O. Mendelzon. On the difference between updating a knowledge database and revising it. In Belief Revision, P. Gärdenfors Ed. Cambrigde tracts in theoretical computer science 29. Cambridge University Press, 1992.

    Google Scholar 

  18. D. Lehmann. Belief revision, revised. In Proceedings IJCAI'95, 1995, pages 1534–1540.

    Google Scholar 

  19. D. Lehmann and M. Magidor. What does a conditional knowledge base entail? Artificial Intelligence, 55:1–60, 1992.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  20. Paolo Liberatore. The complexity of iterated belief revision. In Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Database Theory-ICDT'97, Delphi, Greece, January 8–10, 1997. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 1186, Springer, 1997, pages 276–290.

    Google Scholar 

  21. V. Marek and M. Truszczynski. Revision programming, Database Updates and Integrity Constraints. In Proc. of 5th International Conference of Database Theory, Prague, Czech Republic, January 11–13, 1995. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 893, Springer, 1995, pages 368–382.

    Google Scholar 

  22. A.C. Nayak. Foundational Belief Change. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 23:495–533, 1994.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  23. B. Nebel. Syntax-Based Approches to Belief Revision. In Belief Revision, P. Gärdenfors Ed. Cambrigde tracts in theoretical computer science 29. Cambridge University Press, 1992, pages 52–88

    Google Scholar 

  24. R. Reiter. A theory of diagnosis from first principles. Artificial Intelligence, 32:57–95, 1987.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  25. K. Satoh. Nonmonotonic reasoning by minimal belief revision. In Proceedings International Conference on Fifth Generation Computer Systems, Tokio, 1988, pages 455–462.

    Google Scholar 

  26. N. Tennant. Changing the Theory of Theory Change: Towards a Computational Approach. British Journal for Philosophy of Science, 45:865–897, 1994.

    MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  27. A. Weber. Updating propositional formulas. In Proceedings First Conference on Database Systems, 1986, pages 487–500.

    Google Scholar 

  28. M. Winslett. Reasoning about action using a possible models approach. In Proceedings AAAI'88, 1988, pages 89–93.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. LIFL U.A. 369 du CNRS, Université de Lille I, 59655, Villeneuve d'Ascq, France

    Hassan Bezzazi, Stéphane Janot, Sébastien Konieczny & Ramón Pino Pérez

Authors
  1. Hassan Bezzazi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Stéphane Janot
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Sébastien Konieczny
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Ramón Pino Pérez
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Burkhard Freitag Hendrik Decker Michael Kifer Andrei Voronkov

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 1998 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

Bezzazi, H., Janot, S., Konieczny, S., Pérez, R.P. (1998). Analysing rational properties of change operators based on forward chaining. In: Freitag, B., Decker, H., Kifer, M., Voronkov, A. (eds) Transactions and Change in Logic Databases. DYNAMICS 1997. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 1472. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/BFb0055504

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BFb0055504

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-540-65305-9

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-540-49449-2

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation