Advertisement

Dialogue Models for Knowledge Representation

  • J. Ph. Hoepelman
  • A. J. M. van Hoof
Conference paper
Part of the Informatik-Fachberichte book series (INFORMATIK, volume 238)

Abstract

In this paper we present a new interpretation of failure, a concept to which a lot of attention is being paid in the field of artificial intelligence research, especially due to the rise of the programming language PROLOG that treats negation as procedural failure. Our interpretation of failure, however, does not originate from research in the foundations of PROLOG. We present it here as an outcome of research on so-called dialogue logics, a tradition in logic research that envisages a logical proof as a formalized discussion between conflicting parties. Systems of formalized discussion that show the same logical behaviour as standard logical systems can be built. We show how such a system with additional fail operator can be used for the treatment of phenomena that are also relevant for natural language discourse. In the paper the following will be analyzed: negative questions, the paradox of the small number, and conditionals.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Barth, E.M., “A New Field: Empirical Logic, Bioprograms, Logemes and Logics as Institutions”, in Synthese 63, 1985Google Scholar
  2. Barth, E.M. and Krabbe, E.C.W., From Axiom to Dialogue. A Philosophical Study of Logics and Argumentation, Berlin, 1982zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. Gabbay, D.M., “Modal Provability Foundations for Negation by Failure”, internal report Tl.8 ESPRIT project 393, ACORD, 1987Google Scholar
  4. Harper, W.L. et al. (Eds), Ifs, Dordrecht, 1981Google Scholar
  5. Hintikka, J. and Kulas, J., The Game of Language, Dordrecht, 1983zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. Hoepelman, J., “On Questions”, in Kiefer, F. (Ed), Questions and Answers, Dordrecht, 1983Google Scholar
  7. Hoepelman, J. and van Hoof, A.J. M., “Two Party, Two Role Semantics: Knowledge Representation, Conditionals and Non-Monotonicity” Unpublished Paper, IAO-Stuttgart, 1989Google Scholar
  8. Hoepelman, J. Ph., and van Hoof, A.J.M., “The Success of Failure. The concept of failure in dialogue logics and its relevance for NL-semantics.” Coling 1988, Vol. 1, pp. 250–254.Google Scholar
  9. Kiefer, F.(Ed), Questions and Answers, Dordrecht, 1983Google Scholar
  10. Krabbe, E., “Non-cumulative Dialectical Models and Formal Dialectics”, in Philosophical Logic 14, 1985, pp. 129–168.CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  11. Lorenzen, P. and Lorenz, K., Dialogische Logik, Darmstadt, 1978zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. McDermott, D. and Doyle, J., “Non-Monotonic Logic I”, in Artificial Intelligence 13, 1980Google Scholar
  13. Tichy, P., “Subjunctive Conditionals: Two Parameters vs. Three.” Philosophical Studies 45, 1984, pp. 147–179.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  14. Valerius, R., “The Logic of Frame- and Stop-rules in Lorenzen Games.”Dissertation, University of Stuttgart, 1989.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1990

Authors and Affiliations

  • J. Ph. Hoepelman
    • 1
  • A. J. M. van Hoof
    • 1
  1. 1.Fraunhofer Institut für Arbeitswirtschaft und OrganisationStuttgart 1Deutschland

Personalised recommendations