defeasibly
Defeasible Reasoning via Datalog$^\neg$
Hardware architectures can range from the use of GPUs and other hardware accelerators, through multi-core multi-threaded architectures, to shared-nothing cloud computing. Causes for failure to exploit these architectures include lack of expertise in the architectural features, lack of manpower more generally, and difficulty in updating legacy systems. Such problems can be ameliorated by mapping a logic to logic programming as an intermediate language. This is a common strategy in the implementation of defeasible logics. The first implementation of a defeasible logic, d-Prolog, was implemented as a Prolog meta-interpreter (Covington et al. 1997). Courteous Logic Programs (Grosof 1997) and its successors LPDA (Wan et al. 2009), Rulelog (Grosof and Kifer 2013), Flora2 (Kifer et al. 2018), are implemented in XSB (Swift and Warren 2012).
- Asia > Middle East > Jordan (0.04)
- Oceania > Australia > Australian Capital Territory > Canberra (0.04)
- North America > United States > California > Alameda County > Berkeley (0.04)
- (2 more...)
Reasoning and Proofing Services for Semantic Web Agents
Kravari, Kalliopi (Aristotle University of Thessaloniki) | Papatheodorou, Konstantinos (Institute of Computer Science and University of Crete) | Antoniou, Grigoris (Institute of Computer Science and University of Crete) | Bassiliades, Nick (Aristotle University of Thessaloniki)
The Semantic Web aims to offer an interoperable environment that will allow users to safely delegate complex actions to intelligent agents. Much work has been done for agents' interoperability; especially in the areas of ontology-based metadata and rule-based reasoning. Nevertheless, the SW proof layer has been neglected so far, although it is vital for agents and humans to understand how a result came about, in order to increase the trust in the interchanged information. This paper focuses on the implementation of third party SW reasoning and proofing services wrapped as agents in a multi-agent framework. This way, agents can exchange and justify their arguments without the need to conform to a common rule paradigm. Via external reasoning and proofing services, the receiving agent can grasp the semantics of the received rule set and check the validity of the inferred results.
- Europe > Greece > Central Macedonia > Thessaloniki (0.04)
- Oceania > New Zealand > South Island > Otago > Dunedin (0.04)
- North America > United States > District of Columbia > Washington (0.04)
- (2 more...)
- Information Technology > Communications > Web > Semantic Web (1.00)
- Information Technology > Artificial Intelligence > Representation & Reasoning > Rule-Based Reasoning (1.00)
- Information Technology > Artificial Intelligence > Representation & Reasoning > Expert Systems (1.00)
- Information Technology > Artificial Intelligence > Representation & Reasoning > Agents (1.00)