Defeasible Logic

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
2 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view

Defeasible Logic

Mark Proctor
Davide just got a first cut of Defeasible Logic in Drools. This is like a super charged TMS implementation, that allows users to handle conflicts in logical insertions. It introduces the following rule annotations
@Defeats("rule1", "rule2", "rule3) // comma separated list of rules it defeats

The logical insertion now has a default value of "pos", but a second argument is provided to allow "neg" for negative to specific. Negative Logical insertions are inserted into the "neg" partition.

unit tests:

What defeasible logic is and how it works is covered in a number of published papers, and it covers how ours works.;jsessionid=D5584FFD73C67EBDEB5384CD14EF1256?doi=

Full list of publications:

If you want to play, you'll need to build from master, and it will remain an experimental feature for some time. We can be contacted on irc, if anyone needs help:

rules-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view

Re: Defeasible Logic

This post has NOT been accepted by the mailing list yet.
This is a really cool new feature. I'll have a more thorough read of the links you provide when I get some free time.

Very quick question though, is the idea that one "neg" is enough to remove a fact, regardless of how many rules support that fact? Or is it that there have to be more "neg" facts than "pos" for a fact to be removed?

I can see advantages of both approaches.