Talk:Abductive logic programming
 | Philosophy: Logic Start‑class Low‑importance | |||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||
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)
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)
- 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)
{{Tone}}
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)
- 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:
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. It does appear that AKakas introduced this text, and is one of the authors on that paper, but now Springer's published it…
Update: I've followed the instructions at Wikipedia:Copyright_problems#Suspected_or_complicated_infringement.
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)
How can we solve this form of a copyright issue?
I am not sure how to solve this issue? The blanked part of the article contains a standard formal definition of ALP that can be found in many different places from 1989/90 onwards when the concept and term of ALP was introduced. Indeed, I used a part of the text of one of my earlier papers for this. Does an author have the burden to re-express his/her ideas in different words to avoid falling foul of a copyright issue like this one? I could do that but is this fair? — Preceding unsigned comment added by AKakas (talk • contribs) 05:12, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
- According to wp:Copy-paste
That page also describes, or links to the policies about superficial changes to text (see wp:Close paraphrasing). Now, I do understand that formal definitions for mathematical concepts will often be extremely similar; there are only so many ways that a tuple can be defined and its elements described. However, the text that I removed was much more than the mathematical definition. The sentence that made me realize I'd read this before was "Early work on abduction in Theorist in the context of classical logic was based on the consistency view of constraints." from Denecker & Kakas' Abduction in Logic Programing (text in Google books). Recognizing that User:AKakas is one of the authors of that paper, I realize that if Springer leaves copyright of those papers with the authors, then it may be permissible for User:AKakas to contribute this material to Wikipedia by donating the copyrighted materials. However, if those materials are actually copyrighted by Springer, this probably does not apply. Tayloj (talk) 12:47, 21 August 2013 (UTC)In 99.9% of cases, you may not copy and paste text from other sources into Wikipedia. Doing so is a copyright violation and may constitute plagiarism. Always write the articles in your own words and cite the sources of the article. Copyright violations are often speedily deleted.