In this paper, we investigate inductive inference with system W from conditional belief bases with respect to syntax splitting. The concept of syntax splitting for inductive inference states that inferences about independent parts of the signature should not affect each other. This was captured in work by Kern-Isberner, Beierle, and Brewka in the form of postulates for inductive inference operators expressing syntax splitting as a combination of relevance and independence; it was also shown that c-inference fulfils syntax splitting, while system P inference and system Z both fail to satisfy it. System W is a recently introduced inference system for nonmonotonic reasoning that captures and properly extends system Z as well as c-inference. We show that system W fulfils the syntax splitting postulates for inductive inference operators by showing that it satisfies the required properties of relevance and independence. This makes system W another inference operator besides c-inference that fully complies with syntax splitting, while in contrast to c-inference, also extending rational closure.

Descriptor revision by Hansson is a framework for addressing the problem of belief change. In descriptor revision, different kinds of change processes are dealt with in a joint framework. Individual change requirements are qualified by specific success conditions expressed by a belief descriptor, and belief descriptors can be combined by logical connectives. This is in contrast to the currently dominating AGM paradigm shaped by Alchourr\'on, G\"ardenfors, and Makinson, where different kinds of changes, like a revision or a contraction, are dealt with separately. In this article, we investigate the realisation of descriptor revision for a conditional logic while restricting descriptors to the conjunction of literal descriptors. We apply the principle of conditional preservation developed by Kern-Isberner to descriptor revision for conditionals, show how descriptor revision for conditionals under these restrictions can be characterised by a constraint satisfaction problem, and implement it using constraint logic programming. Since our conditional logic subsumes propositional logic, our approach also realises descriptor revision for propositional logic.

While for classical logics, the motto ``Truth is invariant under the change of notation'' has been studied extensively, less attention has been paid to this aspect in defeasible logics. In this paper, we address equivalences and transformations among conditional knowledge bases that take renamings of the underlying signature into account. Extending previous proposals, we introduce the concepts of \emph{renaming normal form} and \emph{renaming antecedent normal form} for arbitrary knowledge bases and across different signatures. We present procedures to transform every knowledge base to corresponding, up to propositional normalization uniquely determined normal forms and study their properties. Using the obtained normal forms allows for systematically identifying equivalences among knowledge bases, for easier and more transparent comparisons, and for simplified descriptions of algorithms operating on knowledge bases by avoiding tedious, but uninteresting borderline cases.