Standpoint logics offer unified modal logic-based formalisms for representing multiple heterogeneous viewpoints. At the same time, many non-monotonic reasoning frameworks can be naturally captured using modal logics - in particular using the modal logic S4F. In this work, we propose a novel formalism called S4F Standpoint Logic, which generalises both S4F and propositional standpoint logic and is therefore capable of expressing multi-viewpoint, non-monotonic semantic commitments. We define its syntax and semantics and analyze its computational complexity, obtaining the result that S4F Standpoint Logic is not computationally harder than its constituent logics, whether in monotonic or non-monotonic form. We also outline mechanisms for credulous and sceptical acceptance and illustrate the framework with an example.

In this paper, we introduce a new defeasible version of propositional standpoint logic by integrating Kraus et al.'s defeasible conditionals, Britz and Varzinczak's notions of defeasible necessity and distinct possibility, along with Leisegang et al.'s approach to defeasibility into the standpoint logics of Gómez Álvarez and Rudolph. The resulting logical framework allows for the expression of defeasibility on the level of implications, standpoint modal operators, and standpoint-sharpening statements. We provide a preferential semantics for this extended language and propose a tableaux calculus, which is shown to be sound and complete with respect to preferential entailment. We also establish the computational complexity of the tableaux procedure to be in PSpace.

The KLM approach to defeasible reasoning introduces a weakened form of implication into classical logic. This allows one to incorporate exceptions to general rules into a logical system, and for old conclusions to be withdrawn upon learning new contradictory information. Standpoint logics are a group of logics, introduced to the field of Knowledge Representation in the last 5 years, which allow for multiple viewpoints to be integrated into the same ontology, even when certain viewpoints may hold contradicting beliefs. In this paper, we aim to integrate standpoints into KLM propositional logic in a restricted setting. We introduce the logical system of Defeasible Restricted Standpoint Logic (DRSL) and define its syntax and semantics. Specifically, we integrate ranked interpretations and standpoint structures, which provide the semantics for propositional KLM and propositional standpoint logic respectively, in order to introduce ranked standpoint structures for DRSL. Moreover, we extend the non-monotonic entailment relation of rational closure from the propositional KLM case to the DRSL case. The main contribution of this paper is to characterize rational closure for DRSL both algorithmically and semantically, showing that rational closure can be characterized through a single representative ranked standpoint structure. Finally, we conclude that the semantic and algorithmic characterizations of rational closure are equivalent, and that entailment-checking for DRSL under rational closure is in the same complexity class as entailment-checking for propositional KLM.

Standpoint EL is a multi-modal extension of the popular description logic EL that allows for the integrated representation of domain knowledge relative to diverse standpoints or perspectives. Advantageously, its satisfiability problem has recently been shown to be in PTime, making it a promising framework for large-scale knowledge integration. In this paper, we show that we can further push the expressivity of this formalism, arriving at an extended logic, called Standpoint EL+, which allows for axiom negation, role chain axioms, self-loops, and other features, while maintaining tractability. This is achieved by designing a satisfiability-checking deduction calculus, which at the same time addresses the need for practical algorithms. We demonstrate the feasibility of our calculus by presenting a prototypical Datalog implementation of its deduction rules.

We present a tool for modelling and reasoning with knowledge from various diverse (and possibly conflicting) viewpoints. The theoretical underpinnings are provided by enhancing base logics by standpoints according to a recently introduced formalism that we also recall. The tool works by translating the standpoint-enhanced version of the description logic SROIQ to its plain (i.e. classical) version. Existing reasoners can then be directly used to provide automated support for reasoning about diverse standpoints.

Classical semantics assumes that one can model reference, predication and quantification with respect to a fixed domain of precise referent objects. Non-logical terms and quantification are then interpreted directly in terms of elements and subsets of this domain. We explore ways to generalise this classical picture of precise predicates and objects to account for variability of meaning due to factors such as vagueness, context and diversity of definitions or opinions. Both names and predicative expressions can be given either multiple semantic referents or be associated with semantic referents that incorporate some model of variability. We present a semantic framework, Variable Reference Semantics, that can accommodate several modes of variability in relation to both predicates and objects.

The tractability of the lightweight description logic EL has allowed for the construction of large and widely used ontologies that support semantic interoperability. However, comprehensive domains with a broad user base are often at odds with strong axiomatisations otherwise useful for inferencing, since these are usually context-dependent and subject to diverging perspectives. In this paper we introduce Standpoint EL, a multi-modal extension of EL that allows for the integrated representation of domain knowledge relative to diverse, possibly conflicting standpoints (or contexts), which can be hierarchically organised and put in relation to each other. We establish that Standpoint EL still exhibits EL's favourable PTime standard reasoning, whereas introducing additional features like empty standpoints, rigid roles, and nominals makes standard reasoning tasks intractable.

The importance of taking individual, potentially conflicting perspectives into account when dealing with knowledge has been widely recognised. Many existing ontology management approaches fully merge knowledge perspectives, which may require weakening in order to maintain consistency; others represent the distinct views in an entirely detached way. As an alternative, we propose Standpoint Logic, a simple, yet versatile multi-modal logic "add-on" for existing KR languages intended for the integrated representation of domain knowledge relative to diverse, possibly conflicting standpoints, which can be hierarchically organised, combined and put in relation to each other. Starting from the generic framework of First-Order Standpoint Logic (FOSL), we subsequently focus our attention on the fragment of sentential formulas, for which we provide a polytime translation into the standpoint-free version. This result yields decidability and favourable complexities for a variety of highly expressive decidable fragments of first-order logic. Using some elaborate encoding tricks, we then establish a similar translation for the very expressive description logic SROIQb_s underlying the OWL 2 DL ontology language. By virtue of this result, existing highly optimised OWL reasoners can be used to provide practical reasoning support for ontology languages extended by standpoint modelling.

The paper develops a formal model for interpreting vague languages based on a variant of "supervaluation" semantics. Two modes of semantic variability are modelled, corresponding to different aspects of vagueness: one mode arises where there can be multiple definitions of a term; and the other relates to the threshold of applicability of a vague term with respect to the magnitude of relevant observable values. The truth of a proposition depends on both the possible world and the "precisification" with respect to which it is evaluated. Structures representing possible worlds and precisifications are both specified in terms of primitive functions representing observable measurements, so that the semantics is grounded upon an underlying theory of physical reality. On the basis of this semantics, the acceptability of a proposition to an agent is characterised in terms of a combination of agent's beliefs about the world and their attitude to admissible interpretations of vague predicates.