Talk:Abductive logic programming: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 11:50, 24 October 2013

Latest revision as of 19:09, 26 July 2024

(10 intermediate revisions by 9 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-->

: According to [[wp:Copy-paste]] <blockquote>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.</blockquote> 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'' ([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 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 [[Wikipedia:Donating_copyrighted_materials|donating the copyrighted materials]]. However, if those materials are actually copyrighted by Springer, this probably does not apply. [[User:Tayloj|Tayloj]] ([[User talk:Tayloj|talk]]) 12:47, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

The editor of the blanked section has proposed a revision, but it requires an administrator to approve it. I believe the revision meets the requirements needed to avoid the copyright problem. Can an administrator now approve the change?[[User:Logperson|Logperson]] ([[User talk:Logperson|talk]]) 09:20, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

None of the administrators did anything about the blanking problem. So I implemented the change myself, out of frustration. [[User:Logperson|Logperson]] ([[User talk:Logperson|talk]]) 16:04, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

:"Out of frustration" is probably not really a good reason to do anything on Wikipedia. :/ Unfortunately, we have quite a backlog on copyright issues, as a result of which an administrator is only today getting to the article. If you cannot wait for one, you always have the option to look for one at [[WP:ANI]] or use {{tl|adminhelp}}. Unless you are the IP editor whose content you pasted into the article, [[User:Logperson]], I'm afraid your edit itself is a copyright problem. Content on Wikipedia is not public ___domain and requires attribution if you use it elsewhere than where it was authored. This particular issue is generally easy to fix, whether you authored the content or not, as it only requires attribution, but unfortunately the content that you copied over is, itself, a copyright violation - see http://www.math-info.univ-paris5.fr/~moraitis/webpapers/ALP-Intro.pdf. For instance, that document says this:

:::In practice, many ALP systems use the entailment view as this can be easily implemented without the need for any extra specialized procedures for the satisfaction of the integrity constraints since this semantics treats the constraints in the same way as the goal.

The proposed rewrite included the following text:

:::Many of the ALP systems use the entailment view of the integrity constraints as this can be easily implemented without the need for any extra specialized procedures for the satisfaction of the integrity constraints since this view treats the constraints in the same way as the problem goal.

:There was the first random passage I selected and searched for. We cannot replace one copyright problem with another. I'll remove it, and the section can be rewritten, hopefully with original text.

:Before moving content from one page to any other again, please review [[Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia]] for the process, and if you have copy-pasted content in other Wikipedia articles without attribution, please fix it.

:I'll be watching this article now, so if a usable rewrite is proposed, I'll be happy to verify its usability and move it into place in much quicker order. You're welcome also to leave a note at my talk page. :) --[[User:Moonriddengirl|Moonriddengirl]] ^{[[User talk:Moonriddengirl|(talk)]]} 11:50, 24 October 2013 (UTC)