Skip to main content
Log in

Interpreting disjunctive logic programs based on a strong sense of disjunction

  • Published:
Journal of Automated Reasoning Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper studies a strong form of disjunctive information in deductive databases. The basic idea is that a disjunctionAB should be considered true only in the case when neitherA norB can be inferred, but the disjunctionAB is true. Under this interpretation, databases may be inconsistent. For those databases that are consistent, it is shown that a unique minimal model exists. We study a fixpoint theory and present a sound and complete proof procedure for query processing in consistent databases. For a class of inconsistent databases, we obtain a declarative semantics by selecting an interpretation that maximizes satisfaction, and minimizes indefiniteness. Two notions of negation are introduced.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Apt, K. R., Blair, H. A. and Walker, A., ‘Towards a theory of declarative knowledge’ inFoundations of Deductive Databases and Logic Programming (ed. J. Minker), 1988.

  2. Baral, C. and Subrahmanian, V. S., ‘Stable and extension class theory for logic programs and default logics,Journal of Automated Reasoning 8, 345–366 (1992).

    Google Scholar 

  3. Barback, M., Lobo, J. and Lu, J. J., The non-monotonic nature of a class of incomplete information’, inProceedings of the 4th International Conference on Database Theory, Springer, 1992.

  4. Blair, H. A. and Subrahmanian, V. S., ‘Paraconsistent logic programming’,Theoretical Computer Science,68, 135–154 (1989).

    Google Scholar 

  5. Clark, K., ‘Negation as failure’, inLogic and Data Bases (eds. H. Gallaire and J. Minker), Plenum Press, New York, NY, 1978, pp. 293–322.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Gelfond, M. and Lifschitz, V., ‘The stable model semantics for logic programming’, inProceedings of the 5th International Conference on Logic Programming, 1988, pp. 1070–1080.

  7. Gelfond, M. and Lifschitz, V., ‘Logic programs with classical negation’, inProceedings of the 7th International Conference on Logic Programming, 1990, pp. 579–597.

  8. Gottlob, G. and Zicari, R., ‘Closed world databases opened through null values’, inProceedings of the 14th VLDB, 1988, pp. 50–61.

  9. Grant, J. and Subrahmanian, V. S., ‘Reasoning in inconsistent knowledge bases’,Technical Report CS-TR-2532, University of Maryland, 1990.

  10. Kifer, M. and Lozinskii, E., ‘RI: A logic for reasoning with inconsistency’, inIEEE Symposium on Logic in Computer Science, 1989, pp. 253–262.

  11. Kifer, M. and Subrahmanian, V. S., ‘On the expressive power of annotated logics’, inProceedings of the 7th International Conference on Logic Programming, 1990.

  12. Lobo, J., Minker, J. and Rajasekar, A.,Foundations of Disjunctive Logic Programming, MIT Press, 1992.

  13. Lloyd, J. W.,Foundations of Logic Programming, Springer, 1988.

  14. McCarty, L. T. and van der Meyden, R., ‘Indefinite reasoning with definite rules’, inProceedings IJCAI, 1991, 890–896.

  15. Minker, J., ‘On indefinite databases and the closed world assumption’, inProceedings of the 6th International Conference on Automated Deduction, Springer, 1982, pp. 292–308.

  16. Minker, J. and Perlis, D., ‘Applications of protected circumscription’, inProceedings of the 7th International Conference on Automated Deduction, Springer, 1984, pp. 414–425.

  17. Minker, J. and Rajasekar, A., ‘A fixpoint semantics for disjunctive logic programs’,Journal of Logic Programming 9, 45–74 (1990).

    Google Scholar 

  18. Ng, R. and Subrahmanian, V. S., ‘A semantical framework for supporting subjective and conditional probabilities in deductive databases’,Journal of Automated Reasoning 10, 191–235 (1993).

    Google Scholar 

  19. Rajasekar, A., Lobo, J. and Minker, J. ‘Weak generalized closed world assumption’,Journal of Automated Reasoning 5, 293–307 (1989).

    Google Scholar 

  20. Priest, G., ‘Reasoning about truth’,Artificial Intelligence 39, 231–244 (1989).

    Google Scholar 

  21. Read, S.,Relevant Logic, Basil Blackwell, 1989.

  22. Reiter, R., ‘On closed world data bases, inLogic and Data Bases (eds. H. Gallaire and J. Minker), Plenum Press, New York, 1978, pp. 55–76.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Reiter, R., ‘A logic for default reasoning,Artificial Intelligence 13, 81–132 (1980).

    Google Scholar 

  24. Ross, K. A. and Topor, R. W., ‘Inferring negative information from disjunctive databases’,Technical Report, University of Melbourne, 1988.

  25. van Gelder, A., Ross, K. A. and Schlipf, J. S., ‘The well-founded semantics for general logic programs,J. ACM,38(3), 62–650 (1991).

    Google Scholar 

  26. Yahya, A. and Henschen, L. J., ‘Deduction in non-horn databases’,Journal of Automated Reasoning 1, 141–160 (1985).

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Lu, J.J., Barback, M.D. & Henschen, L.J. Interpreting disjunctive logic programs based on a strong sense of disjunction. J Autom Reasoning 10, 345–370 (1993). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00881796

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00881796

Key words

Navigation