Abstract
Databases and knowledge bases could be inconsistent in many ways. For example, during the construction of an expert system, we may consult many different experts. Each expert may provide us with a group of rules and facts which are self-consistent. However, when we coalesce the facts and rules provided by these different experts, inconsistency may arise. Alternatively, knowledge bases may be inconsistent due to the presence of some erroneous information. Thus, a framework for reasoning about knowledge bases that contain inconsistent information is necessary. However, existing frameworks for reasoning with inconsistency do not support reasoning by cases and reasoning with the law of excluded middle (everything is either true or false). In this paper, we show how reasoning with cases, and reasoning with the law of excluded middle may be captured. We develop a declarative and operational semantics for knowledge bases that are possibly inconsistent. We compare and contrast our work with work on explicit and non-monotonic modes of negation in logic programs and suggest under what circumstances one framework may be preferred over another. >
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callMore From: IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
