**Mail folder:**Interlingua Mail**Next message:**nebel@cs.uni-sb.de: "Re: Recursive Defs "**Previous message:**schubert@cs.rochester.edu: "definitions-proposal"

Date: Sun, 29 Jul 90 00:06 PDT From: Richard Fikes <pwtc!fikes@labrea.stanford.edu> Subject: Comments from Vladimir Lifschitz on the Nonmonotonic Proposal To: interlingua@vaxa.isi.edu Cc: pwtc!Fikes@labrea.stanford.edu Included-Msgs: <9007271825.AA25426@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU>, The message of 27 Jul 90 11:25 PDT from labrea!val@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU, The message of 27 Jul 90 11:25 PDT from Vladimir Lifschitz Included-References: <19900717165326.5.FIKES@peso.tc.pw.com>, The message of 17 Jul 90 09:53 PDT from Richard Fikes Message-id: <19900729070640.9.FIKES@peso.tc.pw.com>

I ask Vladimir to evaluate the new proposal for expressing nonmonotonic knowledge in KIF. He will not be at AAAI, but sent the following comments. Richard Date: Fri, 27 Jul 90 11:25 PDT From: Vladimir Lifschitz <labrea!val@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU> To: pwtc!fikes@labrea.stanford.edu To: genesereth@cs.Stanford.EDU In-Reply-To: Richard Fikes's message of Tue, 17 Jul 90 09:53 PDT <19900717165326.5.FIKES@peso.tc.pw.com> Subject: KIF Notes on the Nonmonotonicity Section of the KIF Manual July 27, 1990 1. In connection with the closed world assumption (CWA), we need to distinguish between the ground atoms of the internal language of the system and the larger class of the baselevel ground atoms of KIF. The designer of the system perhaps knew nothing about KIF, and his understanding of the CWA had nothing to do with this larger class. For this reason, it seems that (baselevel $p) in the formula on p. 27 should be replaced by something like (internal-language $p). The semantics of "internal-language" is not completely clear to me. It probably applies only to the internal languages that are "logic-based" in some sense. If a ground atom of KIF contains any of the constants listed in Appendix A (A.1-A.4) then apparently it is not an internal- language atom. Are there any other exceptions? Can it happen that, in the process of translating the internal knowledge base into KIF, some defined relations are introduced, such as "bachelor" in Sec. 8.4? If yes, then such relations should not be allowed in internal-language formulas either. Or is it forbidden to add new definitions in the process of translating knowledge into KIF? (Will there be any specifications--formal or informal--for the translation process?) A similar problem arises in connection with the unique names assumption (UNA), because there are more ground terms in KIF than in the internal language. 2. How will we define "derivable" for KIF (which is used in the CWA and UNA)? This isn't obvious, because KIF is not a first-order language. Are there any postulates for the constants from A.1-A.4, including "true"? For "database"? For "defrelation"? For "derivable" itself? Perhaps the notion of derivability should be applied to the "internal- language component" of KIF only; then we won't have to address these questions. When this is settled, it would be a good idea to prove that the definitions of the CWA and UNA in KIF are satisfactory in the sense that, for some specific method of translating first-order formulas into KIF, they are equivalent to the usual definitions of the CWA and UNA for first-order theories. This should be easy if all the definitions are reasonable. 3. Do we want to include predicate completion as a separate construct? It is restricted here to the solitary case, when it is equivalent to circumscription anyway. Predicate completion was originally proposed as a semantics for logic programs, but now many people favor the stratification-based semantics (which can be easily expressed in terms of circumscription--see my paper in Ginsberg's collection, p. 337). Besides, the solitary case is inadequate for logic programs anyway, because it is not applicable when the program is recursive. 4. About including second-order logic in KIF: I would support this solution to the problem of expressing circumscription. True, there will be no complete inference procedure then, but for languages as expressive as KIF such procedures would be of no use anyway. KIF includes all first-order number theory; you can write Fermat's last theorem as a sentence in KIF! Circumscription wouldn't be the only opportunity to use second-order quantifiers in KIF. Recursive definition can be reformulated as explicit second-order definitions; we'll be able, for instance, to define transitive closure using the defrelation construct. 5. It will be necessary to include some notation for circumscription policies, including priorities. I gave Mike a draft of the chapter for the Handbook of Logic in AI that I'm writing now, which can be useful. 6. Brewka's IJCAI-87 paper "The Logic of Inheritance in Frame Systems" describes a translation from a frame language into circumscription. It would be useful to include an example based on that paper.