Typology
operator:
and / or
Language
operator:
and / or
Date
operator:
and / or
Rights
operator:
and / or
2025
Other
Restricted
InfraScience research activity report 2024
Angioni S., Artini M., Assante M., Atzori C., Baglioni M., Bardi A., Bosio C., Bove P., Calanducci A., Candela L., Casini G., Castelli D., Cirillo R., Coro G., De Bonis M., Debole F., Dell'Amico A., Frosini L., Ibrahim Ahmed, La Bruzzo S., Lelii L., Manghi P., Mangiacrapa F., Mangione D., Mannocci A., Molinaro E., Oliviero A., Pagano P., Panichi G., Teresa M. T., Pavone G., Peccerillo B., Piccioli T., Procaccini M., Straccia U., Vannini G. L., Versienti L.
InfraScience is a research group within the Institute of Information Science and Technologies (ISTI) of the National Research Council of Italy (CNR), based in Pisa. This activity report outlines the group's research achievements and initiatives throughout 2024. InfraScience focused its efforts on key challenges in the areas of Data Infrastructures, e-Science, and Intelligent Systems, maintaining a strong synergy between research and development and a firm commitment to open science principles. In 2024, the group played a leading role in the development and evolution of two major Open Science infrastructures: D4Science and OpenAIRE. InfraScience researchers contributed significantly to the scientific community through the publication of peer-reviewed papers, active participation in EU-funded research projects, organization of international conferences and training activities, and engagement in various working groups and task forces. This report highlights these contributions and underscores the group's ongoing dedication to advancing open, collaborative, and impactful science.DOI: 10.32079/isti-ar-2025/001
Metrics:
Angioni S., Artini M., Assante M., Atzori C., Baglioni M., Bardi A., Bosio C., Bove P., Calanducci A., Candela L., Casini G., Castelli D., Cirillo R., Coro G., De Bonis M., Debole F., Dell'Amico A., Frosini L., Ibrahim Ahmed, La Bruzzo S., Lelii L., Manghi P., Mangiacrapa F., Mangione D., Mannocci A., Molinaro E., Oliviero A., Pagano P., Panichi G., Teresa M. T., Pavone G., Peccerillo B., Piccioli T., Procaccini M., Straccia U., Vannini G. L., Versienti L.
InfraScience is a research group within the Institute of Information Science and Technologies (ISTI) of the National Research Council of Italy (CNR), based in Pisa. This activity report outlines the group's research achievements and initiatives throughout 2024. InfraScience focused its efforts on key challenges in the areas of Data Infrastructures, e-Science, and Intelligent Systems, maintaining a strong synergy between research and development and a firm commitment to open science principles. In 2024, the group played a leading role in the development and evolution of two major Open Science infrastructures: D4Science and OpenAIRE. InfraScience researchers contributed significantly to the scientific community through the publication of peer-reviewed papers, active participation in EU-funded research projects, organization of international conferences and training activities, and engagement in various working groups and task forces. This report highlights these contributions and underscores the group's ongoing dedication to advancing open, collaborative, and impactful science.DOI: 10.32079/isti-ar-2025/001
Metrics:
2024
Conference article
Open Access
Defeasible justification for KLM-style logic
Chama V., Wang S., Meyer T., Casini G.
Research in description logics (DLs) and formal ontologies has dedicated quite an effort to the investigation of the notion of explanation for DL reasoning, for example relying on the notion of justification [1]. There has also been some effort dedicated to the definition of defeasible reasoning for DLs that, contrary to the classical monotonic reasoning, is appropriate for dealing with incomplete/uncertain information. In the present paper, we extend the notion of justification to the framework of defeasible reasoning for DLs; specifically, we consider rational closure [2], an entailment relation that is of particular importance in the area of defeasible reasoning. Here we present the main theoretical results for the DL ALC, and an implementation of our solution, at the moment developed for propositional logic.Source: CEUR WORKSHOP PROCEEDINGS, vol. 3739. Bergen, Norway, 18-21/06/2024
Project(s): STARWARS
Chama V., Wang S., Meyer T., Casini G.
Research in description logics (DLs) and formal ontologies has dedicated quite an effort to the investigation of the notion of explanation for DL reasoning, for example relying on the notion of justification [1]. There has also been some effort dedicated to the definition of defeasible reasoning for DLs that, contrary to the classical monotonic reasoning, is appropriate for dealing with incomplete/uncertain information. In the present paper, we extend the notion of justification to the framework of defeasible reasoning for DLs; specifically, we consider rational closure [2], an entailment relation that is of particular importance in the area of defeasible reasoning. Here we present the main theoretical results for the DL ALC, and an implementation of our solution, at the moment developed for propositional logic.Source: CEUR WORKSHOP PROCEEDINGS, vol. 3739. Bergen, Norway, 18-21/06/2024
Project(s): STARWARS
See at:
ceur-ws.org 
| CNR IRIS | CNR IRIS 
2023
Journal article
Open Access
Situated conditional reasoning
Casini G, Meyer T, Varzinczak I
Conditionals are useful for modelling many forms of everyday human reasoning but are not always sufficiently expressive to represent the information we want to reason about. In this paper, we make a case for a form of situated conditional. By 'situated', we mean that there is a context, based on an agent's beliefs and expectations, that works as background information in evaluating a conditional, and we allow such a context to vary. These conditionals are able to distinguish, for example, between expectations and counterfactuals. Formally, they are shown to generalise the conditional setting in the style of Kraus, Lehmann, and Magidor. We show that situated conditionals can be described in terms of a set of rationality postulates. We then propose an intuitive semantics for these conditionals and present a representation result which shows that our semantic construction corresponds exactly to the description in terms of postulates. With the semantics in place, we define a form of entailment for situated conditional knowledge bases, which we refer to as minimal closure. Finally, we proceed to show that it is possible to reduce the computation of minimal closure to a series of propositional entailment and satisfiability checks. While this is also the case for rational closure, it is somewhat surprising that the result carries over to minimal closure.Source: ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE, vol. 319
DOI: 10.1016/j.artint.2023.103917
DOI: 10.48550/arxiv.2109.01552
Project(s): TAILOR
Metrics:
Casini G, Meyer T, Varzinczak I
Conditionals are useful for modelling many forms of everyday human reasoning but are not always sufficiently expressive to represent the information we want to reason about. In this paper, we make a case for a form of situated conditional. By 'situated', we mean that there is a context, based on an agent's beliefs and expectations, that works as background information in evaluating a conditional, and we allow such a context to vary. These conditionals are able to distinguish, for example, between expectations and counterfactuals. Formally, they are shown to generalise the conditional setting in the style of Kraus, Lehmann, and Magidor. We show that situated conditionals can be described in terms of a set of rationality postulates. We then propose an intuitive semantics for these conditionals and present a representation result which shows that our semantic construction corresponds exactly to the description in terms of postulates. With the semantics in place, we define a form of entailment for situated conditional knowledge bases, which we refer to as minimal closure. Finally, we proceed to show that it is possible to reduce the computation of minimal closure to a series of propositional entailment and satisfiability checks. While this is also the case for rational closure, it is somewhat surprising that the result carries over to minimal closure.Source: ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE, vol. 319
DOI: 10.1016/j.artint.2023.103917
DOI: 10.48550/arxiv.2109.01552
Project(s): TAILOR
Metrics:
See at:
arXiv.org e-Print Archive | CNR IRIS | ISTI Repository | www.sciencedirect.com | Artificial Intelligence | doi.org | CNR IRIS | CNR IRIS
2023
Journal article
Open Access
Defeasible RDFS via rational closure
Casini G, Straccia U
In the field of non-monotonic logics, the notion of Rational Closure (RC) is acknowledged as a notable approach. In recent years, RC has gained popularity in the context of Description Logics (DLs), the logic underpinning the standard semantic Web Ontology Language OWL 2, whose main ingredients are classes, the relationship among classes and roles, which are used to describe the properties of classes.In this work, we show instead how to integrate RC within the triple language RDFS (Resource Description Framework Schema), which together with OWL 2 is a major standard semantic web ontology language.To do so, we start from rdf, a minimal, but significant RDFS fragment that covers the essential features of RDFS, and then extend it to rdf_\bot, allowing to state that two entities are incompatible/disjoint with each other. Eventually, we propose defeasible rdf_\bot via a typical RC construction allowing to state default class/property inclusions.Furthermore, to overcome the main weaknesses of RC in our context, i.e., the "drowning problem" (viz. the "inheritance blocking problem"), we further extend our construction by leveraging Defeasible Inheritance Networks (DIN) defining a new non-monotonic inference relation that combines the advantages of both (RC and DIN). To the best of our knowledge this is the first time of such an attempt.In summary, the main features of our approach are: (i) the defeasible rdf_\bot we propose here remains syntactically a triple language by extending it with new predicate symbols with specific semantics; (ii) the logic is defined in such a way that any RDFS reasoner/store may handle the new predicates as ordinary terms if it does not want to take account of the extra non-monotonic capabilities; (iii) the defeasible entailment decision procedure is built on top of the rdf_\bot entailment decision procedure, which in turn is an extension of the one for rdf via some additional inference rules favouring a potential implementation; (iv) the computational complexity of deciding entailment in rdf and rdf_\bot are the same; and (v) defeasible entailment can be decided via a polynomial number of calls to an oracle deciding ground triple entailment in rdf_\bot and, in particular, deciding defeasible entailment can be done in polynomial time.Source: INFORMATION SCIENCES, vol. 643
DOI: 10.1016/j.ins.2022.11.165
DOI: 10.48550/arxiv.2007.07573
Project(s): TAILOR
Metrics:
Casini G, Straccia U
In the field of non-monotonic logics, the notion of Rational Closure (RC) is acknowledged as a notable approach. In recent years, RC has gained popularity in the context of Description Logics (DLs), the logic underpinning the standard semantic Web Ontology Language OWL 2, whose main ingredients are classes, the relationship among classes and roles, which are used to describe the properties of classes.In this work, we show instead how to integrate RC within the triple language RDFS (Resource Description Framework Schema), which together with OWL 2 is a major standard semantic web ontology language.To do so, we start from rdf, a minimal, but significant RDFS fragment that covers the essential features of RDFS, and then extend it to rdf_\bot, allowing to state that two entities are incompatible/disjoint with each other. Eventually, we propose defeasible rdf_\bot via a typical RC construction allowing to state default class/property inclusions.Furthermore, to overcome the main weaknesses of RC in our context, i.e., the "drowning problem" (viz. the "inheritance blocking problem"), we further extend our construction by leveraging Defeasible Inheritance Networks (DIN) defining a new non-monotonic inference relation that combines the advantages of both (RC and DIN). To the best of our knowledge this is the first time of such an attempt.In summary, the main features of our approach are: (i) the defeasible rdf_\bot we propose here remains syntactically a triple language by extending it with new predicate symbols with specific semantics; (ii) the logic is defined in such a way that any RDFS reasoner/store may handle the new predicates as ordinary terms if it does not want to take account of the extra non-monotonic capabilities; (iii) the defeasible entailment decision procedure is built on top of the rdf_\bot entailment decision procedure, which in turn is an extension of the one for rdf via some additional inference rules favouring a potential implementation; (iv) the computational complexity of deciding entailment in rdf and rdf_\bot are the same; and (v) defeasible entailment can be decided via a polynomial number of calls to an oracle deciding ground triple entailment in rdf_\bot and, in particular, deciding defeasible entailment can be done in polynomial time.Source: INFORMATION SCIENCES, vol. 643
DOI: 10.1016/j.ins.2022.11.165
DOI: 10.48550/arxiv.2007.07573
Project(s): TAILOR
Metrics:
See at:
arXiv.org e-Print Archive | CNR IRIS | www.sciencedirect.com | Information Sciences | doi.org | CNR IRIS | CNR IRIS
2023
Conference article
Open Access
Revising typical beliefs: one revision to rule them all
Heyninck J, Casini G, Meyer T, Straccia U
Propositional Typicality Logic (PTL) extends propositional logic with a connective $\bullet$ expressing the most typical (alias normal or conventional) situations in which a given sentence holds. As such, it generalises e.g. preferential logics that formalise reasoning with conditionals such as "birds typically fly". In this paper we study the revision of sets of PTL sentences. We first show why it is necessary to extend the PTL language with a possibility operator and then define the revision of PTL sentences syntactically and characterise it semantically. We show that this allows us to represent a wide variety of existing revision methods, such as propositional revision and revision of epistemic states. Furthermore, we provide several examples showing why our approach is innovative. In more detail, we study the revision of a set of conditionals under preferential closure and the addition and contraction of possible worlds from an epistemic state.DOI: 10.24963/kr.2023/35
Project(s): TAILOR
Metrics:
Heyninck J, Casini G, Meyer T, Straccia U
Propositional Typicality Logic (PTL) extends propositional logic with a connective $\bullet$ expressing the most typical (alias normal or conventional) situations in which a given sentence holds. As such, it generalises e.g. preferential logics that formalise reasoning with conditionals such as "birds typically fly". In this paper we study the revision of sets of PTL sentences. We first show why it is necessary to extend the PTL language with a possibility operator and then define the revision of PTL sentences syntactically and characterise it semantically. We show that this allows us to represent a wide variety of existing revision methods, such as propositional revision and revision of epistemic states. Furthermore, we provide several examples showing why our approach is innovative. In more detail, we study the revision of a set of conditionals under preferential closure and the addition and contraction of possible worlds from an epistemic state.DOI: 10.24963/kr.2023/35
Project(s): TAILOR
Metrics:
See at:
CNR IRIS | ISTI Repository | proceedings.kr.org | CNR IRIS
2023
Other
Open Access
InfraScience research activity report 2023
Artini M., Assante M., Atzori C., Baglioni M., Bardi A., Bosio C., Bove P., Calanducci A., Candela L., Casini G., Castelli D., Cirillo R., Coro G., De Bonis M., Debole F., Dell'Amico A., Frosini L., Ibrahim A. S. T., La Bruzzo S., Lelii L., Manghi P., Mangiacrapa F., Mangione D., Mannocci A., Molinaro E., Pagano P., Panichi G., Paratore M. T., Pavone G., Piccioli T., Sinibaldi F., Straccia U., Vannini G. L.
InfraScience is a research group of the National Research Council of Italy - Institute of Information Science and Technologies (CNR - ISTI) based in Pisa, Italy. This report documents the research activity performed by this group in 2023 to highlight the major results. In particular, the InfraScience group engaged in research challenges characterising Data Infrastructures, e-Science, and Intelligent Systems. The group activity is pursued by closely connecting research and development and by promoting and supporting open science. In fact, the group is leading the development of two large scale infrastructures for Open Science, i.e. D4Science and OpenAIRE. During 2023 InfraScience members contributed to the publishing of several papers, to the research and development activities of several research projects (primarily funded by EU), to the organization of conferences and training events, to several working groups and task forces.DOI: 10.32079/isti-ar-2023/002
Project(s): Blue Cloud, EOSC Future , TAILOR
Metrics:
Artini M., Assante M., Atzori C., Baglioni M., Bardi A., Bosio C., Bove P., Calanducci A., Candela L., Casini G., Castelli D., Cirillo R., Coro G., De Bonis M., Debole F., Dell'Amico A., Frosini L., Ibrahim A. S. T., La Bruzzo S., Lelii L., Manghi P., Mangiacrapa F., Mangione D., Mannocci A., Molinaro E., Pagano P., Panichi G., Paratore M. T., Pavone G., Piccioli T., Sinibaldi F., Straccia U., Vannini G. L.
InfraScience is a research group of the National Research Council of Italy - Institute of Information Science and Technologies (CNR - ISTI) based in Pisa, Italy. This report documents the research activity performed by this group in 2023 to highlight the major results. In particular, the InfraScience group engaged in research challenges characterising Data Infrastructures, e-Science, and Intelligent Systems. The group activity is pursued by closely connecting research and development and by promoting and supporting open science. In fact, the group is leading the development of two large scale infrastructures for Open Science, i.e. D4Science and OpenAIRE. During 2023 InfraScience members contributed to the publishing of several papers, to the research and development activities of several research projects (primarily funded by EU), to the organization of conferences and training events, to several working groups and task forces.DOI: 10.32079/isti-ar-2023/002
Project(s): Blue Cloud
, EOSC Future , TAILOR Metrics:
2023
Book
Open Access
Preface for the first Workshop on AI-driven heterogeneous data management: Completing, merging, handling inconsistencies and query-answering (ENIGMA-2023)
Benferhat S, Casini G, Meyer T, Tettamanzi Agb
Proceedings of 1st Workshop on AI-driven heterogeneous data management: Completing, merging, handling inconsistencies and query-answering, co-located with 20th International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR 2023).Source: CEUR WORKSHOP PROCEEDINGS, pp. 1-95
Benferhat S, Casini G, Meyer T, Tettamanzi Agb
Proceedings of 1st Workshop on AI-driven heterogeneous data management: Completing, merging, handling inconsistencies and query-answering, co-located with 20th International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR 2023).Source: CEUR WORKSHOP PROCEEDINGS, pp. 1-95
See at:
ceur-ws.org | CNR IRIS | ISTI Repository | CNR IRIS
2022
Conference article
Open Access
A rational entailment for expressive description logics via description logic programs
Casini G, Straccia U
Lehmann and Magidor's rational closure is acknowledged as a land-mark in the field of non-monotonic logics and it has also been re-formulated in the context ofDescription Logics (DLs). We show here how to model a rational form of entailment for expressive DLs, such as SROIQ, providing a novel reasoning procedure that compiles a non-monotone DL knowledge base into a description logic program(dl-program).Source: COMMUNICATIONS IN COMPUTER AND INFORMATION SCIENCE (PRINT), pp. 177-191. Durban, South Africa, 6-10/12/2021
DOI: 10.1007/978-3-030-95070-5_12
Metrics:
Casini G, Straccia U
Lehmann and Magidor's rational closure is acknowledged as a land-mark in the field of non-monotonic logics and it has also been re-formulated in the context ofDescription Logics (DLs). We show here how to model a rational form of entailment for expressive DLs, such as SROIQ, providing a novel reasoning procedure that compiles a non-monotone DL knowledge base into a description logic program(dl-program).Source: COMMUNICATIONS IN COMPUTER AND INFORMATION SCIENCE (PRINT), pp. 177-191. Durban, South Africa, 6-10/12/2021
DOI: 10.1007/978-3-030-95070-5_12
Metrics:
See at:
CNR IRIS | link.springer.com | ISTI Repository | CNR IRIS | CNR IRIS
2022
Other
Open Access
A general framework for modelling conditional reasoning - Preliminary report
Casini G, Straccia U
We introduce and investigate here a formalisation for conditionals that allows the definition of a broad class of reasoning systems. This framework covers the most popular kinds of conditional reasoning in logic-based KR: the semantics we propose is appropriate for a structural analysis of those conditionals that do not satisfy closure properties associated to classical logics.Project(s): TAILOR
Casini G, Straccia U
We introduce and investigate here a formalisation for conditionals that allows the definition of a broad class of reasoning systems. This framework covers the most popular kinds of conditional reasoning in logic-based KR: the semantics we propose is appropriate for a structural analysis of those conditionals that do not satisfy closure properties associated to classical logics.Project(s): TAILOR
See at:
arxiv.org | CNR IRIS | ISTI Repository | CNR IRIS
2022
Other
Open Access
A minimal deductive system for RDFS with negative statements
Straccia U, Casini G
The triple language RDFS is designed to represent and reason with \emph{positive} statements only (e.g."antipyretics are drugs"). In this paper we show how to extend RDFS to express and reason with various forms of negative statements under the Open World Assumption (OWA). To do so, we start from rdf, a minimal, but significant RDFS fragment that covers all essential features of RDFS, and then extend it to ?rdfbotneg, allowing express also statements such as "radio therapies are non drug treatments", "Ebola has no treatment", or "opioids and antipyretics are disjoint classes". The main and, to the best of our knowledge, unique features of our proposal are: (i) rdfbotneg remains syntactically a triple language by extending rdf with new symbols with specific semantics and there is no need to revert to the reification method to represent negative triples; (ii) the logic is defined in such a way that any RDFS reasoner/store may handle the new predicates as ordinary terms if it does not want to take account of the extra capabilities; (iii) despite negated statements, every rdfbotneg knowledge base is satisfiable; (iv) the rdfbotneg entailment decision procedure is obtained from rdf via additional inference rules favouring a potential implementation; and (v) deciding entailment in rdfbotneg ranges from P to NP.Project(s): TAILOR
Straccia U, Casini G
The triple language RDFS is designed to represent and reason with \emph{positive} statements only (e.g."antipyretics are drugs"). In this paper we show how to extend RDFS to express and reason with various forms of negative statements under the Open World Assumption (OWA). To do so, we start from rdf, a minimal, but significant RDFS fragment that covers all essential features of RDFS, and then extend it to ?rdfbotneg, allowing express also statements such as "radio therapies are non drug treatments", "Ebola has no treatment", or "opioids and antipyretics are disjoint classes". The main and, to the best of our knowledge, unique features of our proposal are: (i) rdfbotneg remains syntactically a triple language by extending rdf with new symbols with specific semantics and there is no need to revert to the reification method to represent negative triples; (ii) the logic is defined in such a way that any RDFS reasoner/store may handle the new predicates as ordinary terms if it does not want to take account of the extra capabilities; (iii) despite negated statements, every rdfbotneg knowledge base is satisfiable; (iv) the rdfbotneg entailment decision procedure is obtained from rdf via additional inference rules favouring a potential implementation; and (v) deciding entailment in rdfbotneg ranges from P to NP.Project(s): TAILOR
See at:
arxiv.org | CNR IRIS | ISTI Repository | CNR IRIS
2022
Conference article
Open Access
A general framework for modelling conditional reasoning - Preliminary report
Casini G, Straccia U
We introduce and investigate here a formalisation for conditionals that allows the definition of a broad class of reasoning systems. This framework covers the most popular kinds of conditional reasoning in logic-based KR: the semantics we propose is appropriate for a structural analysis of those conditionals that do not satisfy closure properties associated to classical logics.DOI: 10.24963/kr.2022/12
DOI: 10.48550/arxiv.2202.07596
Project(s): TAILOR
Metrics:
Casini G, Straccia U
We introduce and investigate here a formalisation for conditionals that allows the definition of a broad class of reasoning systems. This framework covers the most popular kinds of conditional reasoning in logic-based KR: the semantics we propose is appropriate for a structural analysis of those conditionals that do not satisfy closure properties associated to classical logics.DOI: 10.24963/kr.2022/12
DOI: 10.48550/arxiv.2202.07596
Project(s): TAILOR
Metrics:
See at:
arXiv.org e-Print Archive | CNR IRIS | ISTI Repository | proceedings.kr.org | doi.org | doi.org | CNR IRIS
2022
Conference article
Open Access
A minimal deductive system for RDFS with negative statements
Straccia U., Casini G.
The triple language RDFS is designed to represent and reason with \emph{positive} statements only (e.g."antipyretics are drugs"). In this paper we show how to extend RDFS to express and reason with various forms of negative statements under the Open World Assumption (OWA). To do so, we start from rdf, a minimal, but significant RDFS fragment that covers all essential features of RDFS, and then extend it to ?rdfbotneg, allowing express also statements such as "radio therapies are non drug treatments", "Ebola has no treatment", or "opioids and antipyretics are disjoint classes". The main and, to the best of our knowledge, unique features of our proposal are: (i) rdfbotneg remains syntactically a triple language by extending rdf with new symbols with specific semantics and there is no need to revert to the reification method to represent negative triples; (ii) the logic is defined in such a way that any RDFS reasoner/store may handle the new predicates as ordinary terms if it does not want to take account of the extra capabilities; (iii) despite negated statements, every rdfbotneg knowledge base is satisfiable; (iv) the rdfbotneg entailment decision procedure is obtained from rdf via additional inference rules favouring a potential implementation; and (v) deciding entailment in rdfbotneg ranges from P to NP.Source: PROCEEDINGS-INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON PRINCIPLES OF KNOWLEDGE REPRESENTATION AND REASONING, pp. 351-361. Haifa, Israel, 31/07-05/08/2022
DOI: 10.24963/kr.2022/35
DOI: 10.48550/arxiv.2202.13750
Project(s): TAILOR
Metrics:
Straccia U., Casini G.
The triple language RDFS is designed to represent and reason with \emph{positive} statements only (e.g."antipyretics are drugs"). In this paper we show how to extend RDFS to express and reason with various forms of negative statements under the Open World Assumption (OWA). To do so, we start from rdf, a minimal, but significant RDFS fragment that covers all essential features of RDFS, and then extend it to ?rdfbotneg, allowing express also statements such as "radio therapies are non drug treatments", "Ebola has no treatment", or "opioids and antipyretics are disjoint classes". The main and, to the best of our knowledge, unique features of our proposal are: (i) rdfbotneg remains syntactically a triple language by extending rdf with new symbols with specific semantics and there is no need to revert to the reification method to represent negative triples; (ii) the logic is defined in such a way that any RDFS reasoner/store may handle the new predicates as ordinary terms if it does not want to take account of the extra capabilities; (iii) despite negated statements, every rdfbotneg knowledge base is satisfiable; (iv) the rdfbotneg entailment decision procedure is obtained from rdf via additional inference rules favouring a potential implementation; and (v) deciding entailment in rdfbotneg ranges from P to NP.Source: PROCEEDINGS-INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON PRINCIPLES OF KNOWLEDGE REPRESENTATION AND REASONING, pp. 351-361. Haifa, Israel, 31/07-05/08/2022
DOI: 10.24963/kr.2022/35
DOI: 10.48550/arxiv.2202.13750
Project(s): TAILOR
Metrics:
See at:
arXiv.org e-Print Archive | CNR IRIS | ISTI Repository | proceedings.kr.org | doi.org | doi.org | CNR IRIS
2022
Conference article
Open Access
Situated conditionals - A brief introduction
Casini G, Meyer T, Varzinczak I
We extend the expressivity of classical conditional reasoning by introducing situation as a new parameter. The enriched conditional logic generalises the defeasible conditional setting in the style of Kraus, Lehmann, and Magidor, and allows for a refined semantics that is able to distinguish, for example, between expectations and counterfactuals. We introduce the language for the enriched logic and define an appropriate semantic framework for it. We analyse which properties generally associated with conditional reasoning are still satisfied by the new semantic framework, provide a suitable representation result, and define an entailment relation based on Lehmann and Magidor's generally-accepted notion of RationalClosure.Source: CEUR WORKSHOP PROCEEDINGS, pp. 151-154. Haifa, Israel, 07-09/08/2022
Project(s): TAILOR
Casini G, Meyer T, Varzinczak I
We extend the expressivity of classical conditional reasoning by introducing situation as a new parameter. The enriched conditional logic generalises the defeasible conditional setting in the style of Kraus, Lehmann, and Magidor, and allows for a refined semantics that is able to distinguish, for example, between expectations and counterfactuals. We introduce the language for the enriched logic and define an appropriate semantic framework for it. We analyse which properties generally associated with conditional reasoning are still satisfied by the new semantic framework, provide a suitable representation result, and define an entailment relation based on Lehmann and Magidor's generally-accepted notion of RationalClosure.Source: CEUR WORKSHOP PROCEEDINGS, pp. 151-154. Haifa, Israel, 07-09/08/2022
Project(s): TAILOR
See at:
ceur-ws.org | CNR IRIS | ISTI Repository | CNR IRIS
2022
Conference article
Open Access
Defeasible reasoning in RDFS
Casini G, Straccia U
For non-monotonic logics, the notion of Rational Closure (RC) is acknowledged as one of the main approaches. In this work we present an integration of RC within the triple language RDFS (Resource Description Framework Schema), which together with OWL 2 is a major standard semantic web ontology language. To do so, we start from ?df, an RDFS fragment that covers the essential features of RDFS, and extend it to ?df?, allowing to state that two entities are incompatible/disjoint with each other. Eventually, we propose defeasible ?df? via a typical RC construction allowing to state default class/property inclusions.Source: CEUR WORKSHOP PROCEEDINGS, vol. 3197, pp. 155-158. Haifa, Israel, 07-09/08/2022
Project(s): TAILOR
Casini G, Straccia U
For non-monotonic logics, the notion of Rational Closure (RC) is acknowledged as one of the main approaches. In this work we present an integration of RC within the triple language RDFS (Resource Description Framework Schema), which together with OWL 2 is a major standard semantic web ontology language. To do so, we start from ?df, an RDFS fragment that covers the essential features of RDFS, and extend it to ?df?, allowing to state that two entities are incompatible/disjoint with each other. Eventually, we propose defeasible ?df? via a typical RC construction allowing to state default class/property inclusions.Source: CEUR WORKSHOP PROCEEDINGS, vol. 3197, pp. 155-158. Haifa, Israel, 07-09/08/2022
Project(s): TAILOR
See at:
ceur-ws.org | CNR IRIS | ISTI Repository | CNR IRIS
2022
Book
Open Access
Proceedings of the 20th International Workshop on Non-Monotonic Reasoning (NMR 2022)
Arieli O, Casini G, Giordano L
Proceedings of the 20th International Workshop on Non-Monotonic Reasoning (NMR2022)Source: CEUR WORKSHOP PROCEEDINGS
Arieli O, Casini G, Giordano L
Proceedings of the 20th International Workshop on Non-Monotonic Reasoning (NMR2022)Source: CEUR WORKSHOP PROCEEDINGS
See at:
ceur-ws.org | CNR IRIS | ISTI Repository | CNR IRIS
2022
Other
Open Access
InfraScience research activity report 2021
Artini M, Assante M, Atzori C, Baglioni M, Bardi A, Bove P, Candela L, Casini G, Castelli D, Cirillo R, Coro G, De Bonis M, Debole F, Dell'Amico A, Frosini L, La Bruzzo S, Lazzeri E, Lelii L, Manghi P, Mangiacrapa F, Mangione D, Mannocci A, Ottonello E, Pagano P, Panichi G, Pavone G, Piccioli T, Sinibaldi F, Straccia U
InfraScience is a research group of the National Research Council of Italy - Institute of Information Science and Technologies (CNR - ISTI) based in Pisa, Italy. This report documents the research activity performed by this group in 2021 to highlight the major results. In particular, the InfraScience group confronted with research challenges characterising Data Infrastructures, eScience, and Intelligent Systems. The group activity is pursued by closely connecting research and development and by promoting and supporting open science. In fact, the group is leading the development of two large scale infrastructures for Open Science, i.e. D4Science and OpenAIRE. During 2021 InfraScience members contributed to the publishing of 25 papers, to the research and development activities of 18 research projects (15 funded by EU), to the organization of conferences and training events, to several working groups and task forces.DOI: 10.32079/isti-ar-2022/001
Project(s): ARIADNEplus, Blue Cloud , PerformFISH , EOSC-Pillar , DESIRA , EOSC Future , EOSCsecretariat.eu , EcoScope , RISIS 2 , OpenAIRE-Advance , OpenAIRE Nexus , SoBigData-PlusPlus
Metrics:
Artini M, Assante M, Atzori C, Baglioni M, Bardi A, Bove P, Candela L, Casini G, Castelli D, Cirillo R, Coro G, De Bonis M, Debole F, Dell'Amico A, Frosini L, La Bruzzo S, Lazzeri E, Lelii L, Manghi P, Mangiacrapa F, Mangione D, Mannocci A, Ottonello E, Pagano P, Panichi G, Pavone G, Piccioli T, Sinibaldi F, Straccia U
InfraScience is a research group of the National Research Council of Italy - Institute of Information Science and Technologies (CNR - ISTI) based in Pisa, Italy. This report documents the research activity performed by this group in 2021 to highlight the major results. In particular, the InfraScience group confronted with research challenges characterising Data Infrastructures, eScience, and Intelligent Systems. The group activity is pursued by closely connecting research and development and by promoting and supporting open science. In fact, the group is leading the development of two large scale infrastructures for Open Science, i.e. D4Science and OpenAIRE. During 2021 InfraScience members contributed to the publishing of 25 papers, to the research and development activities of 18 research projects (15 funded by EU), to the organization of conferences and training events, to several working groups and task forces.DOI: 10.32079/isti-ar-2022/001
Project(s): ARIADNEplus
, Blue Cloud , PerformFISH , EOSC-Pillar , DESIRA , EOSC Future , EOSCsecretariat.eu , EcoScope , RISIS 2 , OpenAIRE-Advance , OpenAIRE Nexus , SoBigData-PlusPlus Metrics:
See at:
CNR IRIS | ISTI Repository | CNR IRIS
2022
Other
Open Access
InfraScience research activity report 2022
Artini M, Assante M, Atzori C, Baglioni M, Bardi A, Bove P, Candela L, Casini G, Castelli D, Cirillo R, Coro G, De Bonis M, Debole F, Dell'Amico A, Frosini L, La Bruzzo S, Lelii L, Manghi P, Mangiacrapa F, Mangione D, Mannocci A, Ottonello E, Pagano P, Panichi G, Pavone G, Piccioli T, Sinibaldi F, Straccia U, Zoppi F
InfraScience is a research group of the National Research Council of Italy - Institute of Information Science and Technologies (CNR - ISTI) based in Pisa, Italy. This report documents the research activity performed by this group in 2022 to highlight the major results. In particular, the InfraScience group confronted with research challenges characterising Data Infrastructures, e-Science, and Intelligent Systems. The group activity is pursued by closely connecting research and development and by promoting and supporting open science. In fact, the group is leading the development of two large scale infrastructures for Open Science, i.e. D4Science and OpenAIRE. During 2022 InfraScience members contributed to the publishing of several papers, to the research and development activities of 18 research projects (15 funded by EU), to the organization of conferences and training events, to several working groups and task forces.DOI: 10.32079/isti-ar-2022/004
Project(s): ARIADNEplus, Blue Cloud , EOSC-Pillar , DESIRA , EOSC Future , RISIS 2 , TAILOR , SoBigData-PlusPlus
Metrics:
Artini M, Assante M, Atzori C, Baglioni M, Bardi A, Bove P, Candela L, Casini G, Castelli D, Cirillo R, Coro G, De Bonis M, Debole F, Dell'Amico A, Frosini L, La Bruzzo S, Lelii L, Manghi P, Mangiacrapa F, Mangione D, Mannocci A, Ottonello E, Pagano P, Panichi G, Pavone G, Piccioli T, Sinibaldi F, Straccia U, Zoppi F
InfraScience is a research group of the National Research Council of Italy - Institute of Information Science and Technologies (CNR - ISTI) based in Pisa, Italy. This report documents the research activity performed by this group in 2022 to highlight the major results. In particular, the InfraScience group confronted with research challenges characterising Data Infrastructures, e-Science, and Intelligent Systems. The group activity is pursued by closely connecting research and development and by promoting and supporting open science. In fact, the group is leading the development of two large scale infrastructures for Open Science, i.e. D4Science and OpenAIRE. During 2022 InfraScience members contributed to the publishing of several papers, to the research and development activities of 18 research projects (15 funded by EU), to the organization of conferences and training events, to several working groups and task forces.DOI: 10.32079/isti-ar-2022/004
Project(s): ARIADNEplus
, Blue Cloud , EOSC-Pillar , DESIRA , EOSC Future , RISIS 2 , TAILOR , SoBigData-PlusPlus Metrics:
See at:
CNR IRIS | ISTI Repository | CNR IRIS
2022
Book
Open Access
Handbook of legal AI
Casini G, Robaldo L, Van Der Torre L, Villata S
The Handbook of Legal AI presents a comprehensive overview of the state-of-the-art and trends in the research field of legal AI. The handbook provides a solid introduction to the essentials of the field for newcomers and a selection of advanced issues as a base for future research directions. As the law gets more complex, conflicting, and ever-changing, more advanced methods, most of them come from the Artifi cial Intelligence (AI) field, are required for analyzing, representing and reasoning on legal knowledge. The discipline that tackles these challenges is now known as "Legal Artificial Intelligence". Legal AI is experiencing, in particular, in the latest years growth in activity, also at the industrial level, touching a variety of issues which go from the analysis of the textual content of the law, to reasoning about legal interpretation to ethical issues of AI applications in the legal domain (e.g., the artificial judge). This Handbook presents a collection of chapters which evolves around three main topics, namely norm mining (i.e., how to automatically identify, extract, classify and interlink norms from text), reasoning about norms and regulations (i.e., how to derive new legal knowledge from the existing legal knowledge bases in such a way to address automatic legal decision making), and norm enforcement and compliance (i.e., how to check and ensure the compliance of the systems' requirements with the regulation).Project(s): TAILOR
Casini G, Robaldo L, Van Der Torre L, Villata S
The Handbook of Legal AI presents a comprehensive overview of the state-of-the-art and trends in the research field of legal AI. The handbook provides a solid introduction to the essentials of the field for newcomers and a selection of advanced issues as a base for future research directions. As the law gets more complex, conflicting, and ever-changing, more advanced methods, most of them come from the Artifi cial Intelligence (AI) field, are required for analyzing, representing and reasoning on legal knowledge. The discipline that tackles these challenges is now known as "Legal Artificial Intelligence". Legal AI is experiencing, in particular, in the latest years growth in activity, also at the industrial level, touching a variety of issues which go from the analysis of the textual content of the law, to reasoning about legal interpretation to ethical issues of AI applications in the legal domain (e.g., the artificial judge). This Handbook presents a collection of chapters which evolves around three main topics, namely norm mining (i.e., how to automatically identify, extract, classify and interlink norms from text), reasoning about norms and regulations (i.e., how to derive new legal knowledge from the existing legal knowledge bases in such a way to address automatic legal decision making), and norm enforcement and compliance (i.e., how to check and ensure the compliance of the systems' requirements with the regulation).Project(s): TAILOR
See at:
CNR IRIS | www.collegepublications.co.uk | CNR IRIS
2022
Journal article
Open Access
Normative change: an AGM approach
Maranhàƒo Jsa, Casini G, Van Der Torre L, Pigozzi G
Studying normative change has practical and theoretical interests. Changing legal rules poses interpretation problems to determine the content of legal rules. The question of interpretation is tightly linked to those of determining the validity and the ability to produce effects of legal rules. Different formal models of normative change seem better suited to capture these dimensions: the dimension of validity appears to be better captured by the AGM approach, whereas syntactic methods are better suited to model how rules' effects are blocked or enabled. Historically, the AGM approach of belief revision (on which we focus in this chapter) was the first formal model of normative change. We provide a survey on the AGM approach along with the main criticisms made to it. We then turn to a formal analysis of normative change that combines AGM theory and input/output logic, allowing for a clear distinction between norms and obligations. Our approach addresses some of the difficulties of normative change, like the combination of constitutive and regulative rules (and the normative conflicts that may arise from such a combination), the revision and contraction of normative systems, as well as the contraction of normative systems that combine sets of constitutive and regulative rules. We end our chapter by highlighting and discussing some challenges and open problems of normative change in the AGM approach.Source: JOURNAL OF APPLIED LOGICS, vol. 9 (issue 4), pp. 825-889
Project(s): TAILOR
Maranhàƒo Jsa, Casini G, Van Der Torre L, Pigozzi G
Studying normative change has practical and theoretical interests. Changing legal rules poses interpretation problems to determine the content of legal rules. The question of interpretation is tightly linked to those of determining the validity and the ability to produce effects of legal rules. Different formal models of normative change seem better suited to capture these dimensions: the dimension of validity appears to be better captured by the AGM approach, whereas syntactic methods are better suited to model how rules' effects are blocked or enabled. Historically, the AGM approach of belief revision (on which we focus in this chapter) was the first formal model of normative change. We provide a survey on the AGM approach along with the main criticisms made to it. We then turn to a formal analysis of normative change that combines AGM theory and input/output logic, allowing for a clear distinction between norms and obligations. Our approach addresses some of the difficulties of normative change, like the combination of constitutive and regulative rules (and the normative conflicts that may arise from such a combination), the revision and contraction of normative systems, as well as the contraction of normative systems that combine sets of constitutive and regulative rules. We end our chapter by highlighting and discussing some challenges and open problems of normative change in the AGM approach.Source: JOURNAL OF APPLIED LOGICS, vol. 9 (issue 4), pp. 825-889
Project(s): TAILOR
See at:
CNR IRIS | www.collegepublications.co.uk | CNR IRIS
2022
Conference article
Open Access
KLM-style defeasibility for restricted first-order logic
Casini G, Meyer T, Patersonjones G, Varzinczak I
In this paper, we extend the KLM approach to defeasible reasoning beyond the propositional setting. We do so by making it applicable to a restricted version of first-order logic. We describe defeasibility for this logic using a set of rationality postulates, provide a suitable and intuitive semantics for it, and present a representation result characterising the semantic description of defeasibility in terms of our postulates. An advantage of our semantics is that it is sufficiently general to be applicable to other restricted versions of first-order logic as well. Based on this theoretical core, we then propose a version of defeasible entailment that is inspired by the well-known notion of Rational Closure as it is defined for defeasible propositional logic and defeasible description logics. We show that this form of defeasible entailment is rational in the sense that it adheres to the full set of rationality postulates.DOI: 10.1007/978-3-031-21541-4_6
Project(s): TAILOR
Metrics:
Casini G, Meyer T, Patersonjones G, Varzinczak I
In this paper, we extend the KLM approach to defeasible reasoning beyond the propositional setting. We do so by making it applicable to a restricted version of first-order logic. We describe defeasibility for this logic using a set of rationality postulates, provide a suitable and intuitive semantics for it, and present a representation result characterising the semantic description of defeasibility in terms of our postulates. An advantage of our semantics is that it is sufficiently general to be applicable to other restricted versions of first-order logic as well. Based on this theoretical core, we then propose a version of defeasible entailment that is inspired by the well-known notion of Rational Closure as it is defined for defeasible propositional logic and defeasible description logics. We show that this form of defeasible entailment is rational in the sense that it adheres to the full set of rationality postulates.DOI: 10.1007/978-3-031-21541-4_6
Project(s): TAILOR
Metrics:
See at:
CNR IRIS | link.springer.com | doi.org | CNR IRIS | CNR IRIS