{"status":"ok","message-type":"work","message-version":"1.0.0","message":{"indexed":{"date-parts":[[2025,10,28]],"date-time":"2025-10-28T00:25:06Z","timestamp":1761611106558},"reference-count":0,"publisher":"Cambridge University Press (CUP)","issue":"2","license":[{"start":{"date-parts":[[2003,3,10]],"date-time":"2003-03-10T00:00:00Z","timestamp":1047254400000},"content-version":"unspecified","delay-in-days":9,"URL":"https:\/\/www.cambridge.org\/core\/terms"}],"content-domain":{"domain":[],"crossmark-restriction":false},"short-container-title":["Theory and Practice of Logic Programming"],"published-print":{"date-parts":[[2003,3]]},"abstract":"<jats:p>Prioritized default reasoning has illustrated its rich expressiveness and flexibility in knowledge \nrepresentation and reasoning. However, many important aspects of prioritized default \nreasoning have yet to be thoroughly explored. In this paper, we investigate two properties of \nprioritized logic programs in the context of answer set semantics. Specifically, we reveal a close \nrelationship between mutual defeasibility and uniqueness of the answer set for a prioritized \nlogic program. We then explore how the splitting technique for extended logic programs can \nbe extended to prioritized logic programs. We prove splitting theorems that can be used to \nsimplify the evaluation of a prioritized logic program under certain conditions.<\/jats:p>","DOI":"10.1017\/s1471068402001552","type":"journal-article","created":{"date-parts":[[2003,3,17]],"date-time":"2003-03-17T11:58:48Z","timestamp":1047902328000},"page":"223-242","source":"Crossref","is-referenced-by-count":9,"title":["Two results for prioritized logic programming"],"prefix":"10.1017","volume":"3","author":[{"given":"YAN","family":"ZHANG","sequence":"first","affiliation":[],"role":[{"role":"author","vocabulary":"crossref"}]}],"member":"56","published-online":{"date-parts":[[2003,3,10]]},"container-title":["Theory and Practice of Logic Programming"],"original-title":[],"language":"en","link":[{"URL":"https:\/\/www.cambridge.org\/core\/services\/aop-cambridge-core\/content\/view\/S1471068402001552","content-type":"unspecified","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"similarity-checking"}],"deposited":{"date-parts":[[2019,3,31]],"date-time":"2019-03-31T18:53:27Z","timestamp":1554058407000},"score":1,"resource":{"primary":{"URL":"https:\/\/www.cambridge.org\/core\/product\/identifier\/S1471068402001552\/type\/journal_article"}},"subtitle":[],"short-title":[],"issued":{"date-parts":[[2003,3]]},"references-count":0,"journal-issue":{"issue":"2","published-print":{"date-parts":[[2003,3]]}},"alternative-id":["S1471068402001552"],"URL":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1017\/s1471068402001552","relation":{},"ISSN":["1471-0684","1475-3081"],"issn-type":[{"value":"1471-0684","type":"print"},{"value":"1475-3081","type":"electronic"}],"subject":[],"published":{"date-parts":[[2003,3]]}}}