An argumentation system for reasoning with conflict-minimal paraconsistent ALC
Abstract
The semantic web is an open and distributed environment in which it is hard to guarantee consistency of knowledge and information. Under the standard two-valued semantics everything is entailed if knowledge and information is inconsistent. The semantics of the paraconsistent logic LP offers a solution. However, if the available knowledge and information is consistent, the set of conclusions entailed under the three-valued semantics of the paraconsistent logic LP is smaller than the set of conclusions entailed under the two-valued semantics. Preferring conflict-minimal three-valued interpretations eliminates this difference. Preferring conflict-minimal interpretations introduces non-monotonicity. To handle the non-monotonicity, this paper proposes an assumption-based argumentation system. Assumptions needed to close branches of a semantic tableaux form the arguments. Stable extensions of the set of derived arguments correspond to conflict minimal interpretations and conclusions entailed by all conflict-minimal interpretations are supported by arguments in all stable extensions.
Cite
@article{arxiv.1404.7719,
title = {An argumentation system for reasoning with conflict-minimal paraconsistent ALC},
author = {Wenzhao Qiao and Nico Roos},
journal= {arXiv preprint arXiv:1404.7719},
year = {2014}
}