
It is currently thought in the knowledge‐based systems (KBS) domain that sophisticated tools are necessary for helping an expert with the difficult task of knowledge acquisition. The problem of detecting inconsistencies is especially crucial. The risk of inconsistencies increases with the size of the knowledge base; for large knowledge bases, detecting inconsistencies “by hand” or even by a superficial survey of the knowledge base is impossible. Indeed, most inconsistencies are due to the interaction between several rules via often deep deductions. In this paper, we first state the problem and define our approach in the framework of classical logic. We then describe a complete method to prove the consistency (or the inconsistency) of knowledge bases that we have implemented in the COVADIS system.
| citations This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | 77 | |
| popularity This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network. | Average | |
| influence This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | Top 1% | |
| impulse This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network. | Top 10% |
