Talk:Abductive logic programming

Philosophy: Logic Start‑class Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy

Start

This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Logic

Question: Does anyone other than the authors A.C. Kakas, (probably the principle editor) and M. Denecker use this? Also, Why Are The Words Capitalized? — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 00:18, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One of the earliest uses of abductive logic programming was that by Eshgi, referrenced in the event calculus article. It has been used in the European Community SOCS project to develop an intelligent agent model. There is no reason why the letters should be capitalised.Logperson 11:48, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Capitalization fixed. Notability tag removed. I don't know enough about it to improve the article, though. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 14:16, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article makes extensive use of first-person pronouns us and we, which is decidely discouraged in the Wikipedia:Manual of Style and at Wikipedia:Guide to writing better articles#Tone. User:Dorftrottel 16:12, January 20, 2008

Almost all of those uses are essentially in mathematical contexts, though, which is specifically allowed by the MoS. That is, "we" refers to the reader and the author together considering something, rather than to the original author or authors of the article. Hqb (talk) 16:34, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant section is WP:MSM#Writing style in mathematics. I would argue that the article can and should be improved even according to the more relaxed stance on personal pronouns usually employed in mathematics articles. User:Dorftrottel 19:04, January 20, 2008

Copyrighted/Plagiarized Text

The text under the Formal Semantics section, and possibly under other sections, appears verbatim in other sources that I'd presume are still under applicable copyrights. For instance, searching for the sentence "Early work on abduction in Theorist in the context of classical logic" on Google brings up the conference proceedings in which this work appears:

http://books.google.com/books?id=eLTZ-ZrEctgC&lpg=PA409&ots=BYhD0O5Cvj&dq=%22Early%20work%20on%20abduction%20in%20Theorist%20in%20the%20context%20of%20classical%20logic%22&pg=PA409#v=onepage&q=%22Early%20work%20on%20abduction%20in%20Theorist%20in%20the%20context%20of%20classical%20logic%22&f=false

This source is cited in the references, but where it appears in the article text, there is no indication that it is a verbatim quotation from that source.

How is this sort of thing supposed to be cleaned up? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tayloj (talk • contribs) 19:23, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

{{Tone}}

Copyrighted/Plagiarized Text