Abstract
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Title of host publication | Dynamics and Management of Reasoning Processes |
| Editors | D. Gabbay |
| Publisher | Kluwer Academic |
| Pages | 41-64 |
| ISBN (Electronic) | 978-94-017-1743-4 |
| ISBN (Print) | 978-90-481-5903-1 |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | Published - 2001 |
Publication series
| Name | Series in Defeasible Reasoning and Uncertainty Management Systems |
|---|---|
| Volume | 6 |
Fingerprint
Cite this
}
Formal Semantics of Temporal Epistemic Reflection. / van der Hoek, W.; Meyer, J.J.; Treur, J.
Dynamics and Management of Reasoning Processes. ed. / D. Gabbay. Kluwer Academic, 2001. p. 41-64 (Series in Defeasible Reasoning and Uncertainty Management Systems; Vol. 6).Research output: Chapter in Book / Report / Conference proceeding › Chapter › Academic › peer-review
TY - CHAP
T1 - Formal Semantics of Temporal Epistemic Reflection
AU - van der Hoek, W.
AU - Meyer, J.J.
AU - Treur, J.
PY - 2001
Y1 - 2001
N2 - Meta-level architectures often are used either to model dynamic control of the object level inferences, or to extend the inference relation of the object level. In [Treur, 1992] we introduced formal semantics for meta-level architectures of the first kind based on temporal models. It may be considered quite natural that for such a dynamic type of reasoning system the temporal element of the reasoning should be made explicit in the formal semantics. For the use of meta-level architectures to extend the object level inference relation the situation looks different. In principle one may work out formal semantics in terms of (the logic behind) this extended, non-classical inference relation; e.g., as in the literature for nonmonotonic logics. However, much discussion is possible about this case. Some papers argue that also in the case of a non-monotonic logic the semantics have to make the inherent temporal element explicit; approaches are described in, e.g., [Gabbay, 1982], [Engelfriet and Treur, 1993]. In the current paper we adopt this line.
AB - Meta-level architectures often are used either to model dynamic control of the object level inferences, or to extend the inference relation of the object level. In [Treur, 1992] we introduced formal semantics for meta-level architectures of the first kind based on temporal models. It may be considered quite natural that for such a dynamic type of reasoning system the temporal element of the reasoning should be made explicit in the formal semantics. For the use of meta-level architectures to extend the object level inference relation the situation looks different. In principle one may work out formal semantics in terms of (the logic behind) this extended, non-classical inference relation; e.g., as in the literature for nonmonotonic logics. However, much discussion is possible about this case. Some papers argue that also in the case of a non-monotonic logic the semantics have to make the inherent temporal element explicit; approaches are described in, e.g., [Gabbay, 1982], [Engelfriet and Treur, 1993]. In the current paper we adopt this line.
U2 - 10.1007/978-94-017-1743-4_4
DO - 10.1007/978-94-017-1743-4_4
M3 - Chapter
SN - 978-90-481-5903-1
T3 - Series in Defeasible Reasoning and Uncertainty Management Systems
SP - 41
EP - 64
BT - Dynamics and Management of Reasoning Processes
A2 - Gabbay, D.
PB - Kluwer Academic
ER -