  Revision programming is a formalism to describe and enforce updates of belief
sets and databases. That formalism was extended by Fitting who assigned
annotations to revision atoms. Annotations provide a way to quantify the
confidence (probability) that a revision atom holds. The main goal of our paper
is to reexamine the work of Fitting, argue that his semantics does not always
provide results consistent with intuition, and to propose an alternative
treatment of annotated revision programs. Our approach differs from that
proposed by Fitting in two key aspects: we change the notion of a model of a
program and we change the notion of a justified revision. We show that under
this new approach fundamental properties of justified revisions of standard
revision programs extend to the annotated case.
