Review Comment:
The current version is an improvement on the previous one, and as I have always said it contains interesting results worth of being published. The authors did some changes, but I feel that something more is needed. One of those changes was replace the terms "to simulate" and "to capture" with "to closely approximate", claiming that the first two are ambiguous and the last is not. Actually, I'm not sure about this. Personally I have a good understanding of what "to simulate" or "to capture" mean, but I have no idea of what "to closely approximate" means. I would suggest to closely approximate their intended meaning with the expression "based on the intuition of the logic of [1] under the stable semantics" or "inspired by the logic of [1] under the stable semantics". As I said before I would consider the well-founded semantics of Maher Governatori 1999, for which there is a correspondence result (and not only when there are no loops in the dependency graph).
I think the authors did a good job in revising examples 2, 3 and 4. However, I think a better discussion of example 5 is needed; personally I don't found the intuition you included very convincing. I think you have to discuss the option where a cycle in the #overrides relation is an inconsistency (suppose that the meaning of #overrides is how much one is confident in a rule; then your example says that "I'm more confident in rule @r1 than rule @r2", and "I'm more confident in rule @r2 than rule @r1").
On naf, on page 13, second column item 1, you wrote: "AT^{DL} does not support naf or disjunction in rule heads;". First of all I would invert the disjunction, i.e., "it does not support disjunction in rule head or naf"
What does it mean that "it does not support naf". Consider an axiomatisation of propositional logic defined on implication and negation. It does not use disjunction or conjunction. Are disjunction and conjunction not supported?
In Section2 (at the end of the section) you mention that "existing logic programming approaches to defeasible reasoning cannot handle the above situation". What about plausible logic (reference [5], what about [9], also what about the approaches with ordered disjunction). Also, in Example 2, you mention that there is a workaround for AT^{DL}.
@article{DBLP:journals/ci/BrewkaNS04,
author = {Gerhard Brewka and
Ilkka Niemel{\"a} and
Tommi Syrj{\"a}nen},
title = {Logic Programs with Ordered Disjunction},
journal = {Computational Intelligence},
volume = {20},
number = {2},
year = {2004},
pages = {335-357},
ee = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.0824-7935.2004.00241.x},
bibsource = {DBLP, http://dblp.uni-trier.de}
}
Page 4, column 1, definition 3: Here you repeat that "Sometimes we will omit tags when they are immaterial", you wrote it just before Definition 2.
Definition 7, last paragraph, you cannot use a tag like @r to refer to a rule, since as you wrote several times it is not rule identifier.
|
