Talk:Abductive logic programming: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added
SineBot (talk | contribs)
m Signing comment by AKakas - "How can we solve this form of a copyright issue?: new section"
Archive stale discussions
 
(14 intermediate revisions by 11 users not shown)
Line 1:
{{Talk header}}
{{philosophy|importance=low|class=start|logic=yes}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=Start|
 
{{WikiProject Computer science|importance=low}}
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? — [[User:Arthur Rubin|Arthur Rubin]] | [[User_talk: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.[[User:Logperson|Logperson]] 11:48, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 
:Capitalization fixed. Notability tag removed. I don't know enough about it to improve the article, though. — [[User:Arthur Rubin|Arthur Rubin]] | [[User_talk:Arthur_Rubin|(talk)]] 14:16, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 
== {{tl|Tone}} ==
 
The article makes extensive use of first-person pronouns ''us'' and ''we'', which is decidely discouraged in the [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Avoid first-person pronouns|Wikipedia:Manual of Style]] and at [[Wikipedia:Guide to writing better articles#Tone]]. [[User:Dorftrottel|User]]:[[User talk:Dorftrottel|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. [[User:Hqb|Hqb]] ([[User talk: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|User]]:[[User talk:Dorftrottel|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. 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? <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Tayloj|Tayloj]] ([[User talk:Tayloj|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Tayloj|contribs]]) 19:23, 13 August 2013 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
 
== 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? <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:AKakas|AKakas]] ([[User talk:AKakas|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/AKakas|contribs]]) 05:12, 16 August 2013 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->