Abstract (EN)

In many frameworks for reasoning under inconsistency, it is implicitly assumed that the formulaefrom the belief base are connected using a weakform of conjunction. When it is consistent, a beliefbase B = f'1; : : : ; 'ng, where the 'i are proposi-tional formulae, is logically equivalent to the basef'1 ^ : : : ^ 'ng. However, when it is not consistent, both bases typically lead to different conclusions. This illustrates the fact that the commaused in base B has to be considered as an additional, genuine connective, and not as a simple conjunction. In this work we define and investigate apropositional framework with such a "comma con-nective". We give it a semantics and show how itgeneralizes several approaches for reasoning frominconsistent beliefs.