<html><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;"><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class="">On 23 May 2015, at 15:11 , Adam Wyner <<a href="mailto:adam@wyner.info" class="">adam@wyner.info</a>> wrote:<br class=""><br class="">I would say that RACE race should allow for non-monotonic reasoning, but I could see that in some cases allowing such inferences might confuse a user. That is, if a user is *expecting* or *requiring* or *testing a KB for* monotonic reasoning, then having such inferences would be confusing and then be difficult to trace. On the other hand, where a user really wants non-monotonic reasoning, then having it would be a big strength. <br class=""></blockquote><div class=""><br class=""></div>Adam<div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Thanks for your feedback. </div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">I must, however, disappoint you since RACE was not specifically constructed for non-monotonic reasoning. Perhaps I will add it later.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">The example that I mentioned is a side-effect of the auxiliary axioms for aggregation for the case of proper names that by default are considered distinct. But there could be other cases that I am not aware of. </div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">For this specific case I just decided to add a warning for the user:</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><img apple-inline="yes" id="1E787FCC-C690-4629-9211-81C604A97458" height="409" width="1042" apple-width="yes" apple-height="yes" src="cid:490B5412-69A8-45BE-9DAF-78437E790F74@uzh.ch" class=""></div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">That RACE does not yet do non-monotonic reasoning in general – lacking any prioritisation of axioms or defaults – can be seen by the case of Tweety the penguin.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><img apple-inline="yes" id="2FBF4402-49B2-4A4B-A630-CF9A8F7E1A01" height="415" width="847" apple-width="yes" apple-height="yes" src="cid:C6FFDD3A-7836-4B92-9A42-29542505FCE4@uzh.ch" class=""></div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><img apple-inline="yes" id="498E0948-0EF3-4061-9B08-02EC10B815E5" height="394" width="848" apple-width="yes" apple-height="yes" src="cid:20BEF56E-5824-4B44-9078-DB7C24DCE5C5@uzh.ch" class=""></div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Thus both "Tweety flies" and "Tweety does not fly" are derived accompanied by a warning that the axioms are inconsistent.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Regards.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""> --- nef</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><br class=""></div></body></html>