Skip to main content

On the Difference between Bridge Rules and Lifting Axioms

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNAI,volume 2680))

Abstract

In a previous paper, we proposed a first formal and conceptual comparison between the two most important formalizations of context in AI: Propositional Logic of Context (PLC) and Local Models Semantics/MultiContext Systems (LMS/MCS). The result was that LMS/MCS is at least as general as PLC, as it can be embedded into a particular class of MCS, called MPLC. In this paper we go beyond that result, and prove that, under some important restrictions (including the hypothesis that each context has finite and homogeneous propositional languages), MCS can be embedded in PLC with generic axioms. To prove this theorem, we prove that MCS cannot be embedded in PLC using only lifting axioms to encode bridge rules. This is an important result for a general theory of context and contextual reasoning, as it proves that lifting axioms and entering context are not enough to capture all forms of contextual reasoning that can be captured via bridge rules in LMS/MCS.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Buying options

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. V. Akman, P. Bouquet, R. Thomason, and R.A. Young, editors. Modeling and Using Context, volume 2116 of Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence. Springer Verlag, 2001. Proceedings of CONTEXT’2001 — Third International and Interdisciplinary Conference on Modeling and Using Context (27–30 July 2001, Dundee, Scotland).

    Google Scholar 

  2. P. Bouquet and F. Giunchiglia. Reasoning about theory adequacy: A new solution to the qualification problem. Fundamenta Informaticae, 23(2–4):247–262, June, July, August 1995. Also IRST-Technical Report 9406-13, IRST, Trento, Italy.

    MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  3. P. Bouquet and L. Serafini. Two formalizations of context: a comparison. In P. Bouquet, R. Thomason, and R.A. Young, editors. Modeling and Using Context, volume 2116 of Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence. Springer Verlag, 2001 Akman et al. [1], pages 87–101. Proceedings of CONTEXT’2001 — Third International and Interdisciplinary Conference on Modeling and Using Context (27–30 July 2001, Dundee, Scotland).

    Google Scholar 

  4. S. Buvač, V. Buvač, and I.A. Mason. Metamathematics of Contexts. Fundamentae Informaticae, 23(3), 1995.

    Google Scholar 

  5. S. Buvač and Ian A. Mason. Propositional logic of context. In R. Fikes and W. Lehnert, editors, Proc. of the 11th National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pages 412–419, Menlo Park, California, 1993. American Association for Artificial Intelligence, AAAI Press.

    Google Scholar 

  6. G. Criscuolo, F. Giunchiglia, and L. Serafini. A Foundation for Metareasoning, Part I: The proof theory. Technical Report 0003-38, IRST, Trento, Italy, 2000. To be published in the Journal of Logic and Computation.

    Google Scholar 

  7. C. Ghidini and F. Giunchiglia. Local Models Semantics, or Contextual Reasoning = Locality + Compatibility. Artificial Intelligence, 127(2):221–259, April 2001.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  8. F. Giunchiglia. Contextual reasoning. Epistemologia, special issue on I Linguaggi e le Macchine, XVI:345–364, 1993. Short version in Proceedings IJCAI’93 Workshop on Using Knowledge in its Context, Chambery, France, 1993, pp. 39–49. Also IRST-Technical Report 9211-20, IRST, Trento, Italy.

    Google Scholar 

  9. F. Giunchiglia and L. Serafini. Multilanguage hierarchical logics or: how we can do without modal logics. Artificial Intelligence, 65(1):29–70, 1994. Also IRST-Technical Report 9110-07, IRST, Trento, Italy.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  10. R.V. Guha. Contexts: a Formalization and some Applications. Technical Report ACT-CYC-423-91, MCC, Austin, Texas, 1991.

    Google Scholar 

  11. J. McCarthy. Notes on Formalizing Context. In Proc. of the 13th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pages 555–560, Chambery, France, 1993.

    Google Scholar 

  12. D. Prawitz. Natural Deduction-A proof theoretical study. Almquist and Wiksell, Stockholm, 1965.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  13. A. Tarski, A. Mostowski, and R.M. Robinson. Undecidable theories. North-Holland, 1968.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2003 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

Bouquet, P., Serafini, L. (2003). On the Difference between Bridge Rules and Lifting Axioms. In: Blackburn, P., Ghidini, C., Turner, R.M., Giunchiglia, F. (eds) Modeling and Using Context. CONTEXT 2003. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 2680. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-44958-2_7

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-44958-2_7

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-540-40380-7

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-540-44958-4

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics