This SpringerBrief proposes a general framework for reasoning about inconsistency in a wide variety of logics, including inconsistency resolution methods that have not yet been studied. The proposed framework allows users to specify preferences on how to resolve inconsistency when there are multiple ways to do so. This empowers users to resolve inconsistency in data leveraging both their detailed knowledge of the data as well as their application needs. The brief shows that the framework is well-suited to handle inconsistency in several logics, and provides algorithms to compute preferred...
This SpringerBrief proposes a general framework for reasoning about inconsistency in a wide variety of logics, including inconsistency resolution meth...
This SpringerBrief reviews the knowledge engineering problem of engineering objectivity in top-k query answering; essentially, answers must be computed taking into account the user's preferences and a collection of (subjective) reports provided by other users. Most assume each report can be seen as a set of scores for a list of features, its author's preferences among the features, as well as other information is discussed in this brief. These pieces of information for every report are then combined, along with the querying user's preferences and their trust in each report, to rank the...
This SpringerBrief reviews the knowledge engineering problem of engineering objectivity in top-k query answering; essentially, answers must be comp...
