So, what exactly is a qualitative calculus?

Abstract The paradigm of algebraic constraint-based reasoning, embodied in the notion of a qualitative calculus, is studied within two alternative frameworks. One framework defines a qualitative calculus as “a non-associative relation algebra (NA) with a qualitative representation”, the other as “an algebra generated by jointly exhaustive and pairwise disjoint (JEPD) relations”. These frameworks provide complementary perspectives: the first is intensional (axiom-based), whereas the second one is extensional (based on semantic structures). However, each definition admits calculi that lie beyond the scope of the other. Thus, a qualitatively representable NA may be incomplete or non-atomic, whereas an algebra generated by JEPD relations may have non-involutive converse and no identity element. The divergence of definitions creates a confusion around the notion of a qualitative calculus and makes the “what” question posed by Ligozat and Renz actual once again. Here we define the relation-type qualitative calculus unifying the intensional and extensional approaches. By introducing the notions of weak identity, inference completeness and Q-homomorphism, we give equivalent definitions of qualitative calculi both intensionally and extensionally. We show that “algebras generated by JEPD relations” and “qualitatively representable NAs” are embedded into the class of relation-type qualitative algebras.