Given the large variety of existing logical formalisms it is of utmost importance
to select the most adequate one for a specific purpose, e.g. for representing
the knowledge relevant for a particular application or for using the formalism
as a modeling tool for problem solving. Awareness of the nature of a logical
formalism, in other words, of its fundamental intrinsic properties, is indispensable
and provides the basis of an informed choice.
One such intrinsic property of logic-based knowledge representation languages
is the context-dependency of pieces of knowledge. In classical propositional
logic, for example, there is no such context-dependence: whenever two
sets of formulas are equivalent in the sense of having the same models (ordinary
equivalence), then they are mutually replaceable in arbitrary contexts (strong
equivalence). However, a large number of commonly used formalisms are not
like classical logic which leads to a series of interesting developments. It turned
out that sometimes, to characterize strong equivalence in formalism L, we can
use ordinary equivalence in formalism L0: for example, strong equivalence in
normal logic programs under stable models can be characterized by the standard
semantics of the logic of here-and-there. Such results about the existence of
characterizing logics has rightly been recognized as important for the study of
concrete knowledge representation formalisms and raise a fundamental question:
Does every formalism have one? In this thesis, we answer this question
with a qualified “yes”. More precisely, we show that the important case of
considering only finite knowledge bases guarantees the existence of a canonical
characterizing formalism. Furthermore, we argue that those characterizing
formalisms can be seen as classical, monotonic logics which are uniquely determined (up to isomorphism) regarding their model theory.
The other main part of this thesis is devoted to argumentation semantics
which play the flagship role in Dung’s abstract argumentation theory. Almost
all of them are motivated by an easily understandable intuition of what should
be acceptable in the light of conflicts. However, although these intuitions equip
us with short and comprehensible formal definitions it turned out that their
intrinsic properties such as existence and uniqueness, expressibility, replaceability
and verifiability are not that easily accessible. We review the mentioned
properties for almost all semantics available in the literature. In doing so we
include two main axes: namely first, the distinction between extension-based
and labelling-based versions and secondly, the distinction of different kind of
argumentation frameworks such as finite or unrestricted ones.
| Identifer | oai:union.ndltd.org:DRESDEN/oai:qucosa:de:qucosa:36595 |
| Date | 18 December 2019 |
| Creators | Baumann, Ringo |
| Contributors | Leipzig University |
| Source Sets | Hochschulschriftenserver (HSSS) der SLUB Dresden |
| Language | English |
| Detected Language | English |
| Type | info:eu-repo/semantics/acceptedVersion, doc-type:doctoralThesis, info:eu-repo/semantics/doctoralThesis, doc-type:Text |
| Rights | info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess |
Page generated in 0.0024 seconds