Journal on Data Semantics

, Volume 1, Issue 2, pp 99–131 | Cite as

Transaction Logic with Partially Defined Actions

Original Article

Abstract

In this paper we develop a novel logic formalism, \({\mathcal{T} \, \mathcal{R}^{PAD}}\) (Transaction Logic with Partially Defined Actions), designed for reasoning about the effects of complex actions. \({\mathcal{T} \, \mathcal{R}^{PAD}}\) is based on a subset of Transaction Logic, but extends it with a new kind of formulas, called premise-formulas, which express information about states and the execution of actions. This makes the formalism more suitable for specifying partial knowledge about actions. We develop a sound and complete proof theory for \({\mathcal{T} \, \mathcal{R}^{PAD}}\) and illustrate the formalism on a number of instructive examples. In addition, we show that an expressive subset of \({\mathcal{T} \, \mathcal{R}^{PAD}}\) is reducible to standard logic programming and define a precise sense in which this reduction is sound and complete.

Keywords

Transaction Logic Actions Knowledge representation Reasoning 

References

  1. 1.
    Anicic D, Fodor P, Stühmer R, Stojanovic N (2009) An approach for data-driven logic-based complex event processing. In: The 3rd ACM international conference on distributed event-based systems (DEBS)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Apt KR, van Emden MH (1982) Contributions to the theory of logic programming. J ACM 29:841–862. doi:10.1145/322326.322339 Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Baral C, Gelfond M (1993) Representing concurrent actions in extended logic programming. In: Proceedings of the 13th international joint conference on artifical intelligence, vol 2. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco, pp 866–871. http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1624140.1624145
  4. 4.
    Baral C, Gelfond M (2000) Reasoning agents in dynamic domains. Kluwer, Norwell, pp 257–279. http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=566344.566364
  5. 5.
    Baral C, Gelfond M (2005) Reasoning about intended actions. In: Proceedings of the 20th national conference on artificial intelligence, vol 2. AAAI Press, pp 689–694. http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1619410.1619443
  6. 6.
    Baral C, Gelfond M, Provetti A (1997) Representing actions: laws, observations and hypotheses. J Logic Program 31: 201–244MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bonner A, Kifer M (1993) Transaction logic programming. In: International conference on logic programming. MIT Press, Budapest, pp 257–282Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bonner A, Kifer M (1994) Applications of transaction logic to knowledge representation. In: Proceedings of the international conference on temporal logic. Lecture notes in artificial intelligence, vol 827. Springer, Bonn, pp 67–81Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bonner A, Kifer M (1995) Transaction logic programming (or a logic of declarative and procedural knowledge). Technical report CSRI-323, University of Toronto. http://www.cs.sunysb.edu/~kifer/TechReports/transaction-logic.pdf
  10. 10.
    Bonner A, Kifer M (1998) A logic for programming database transactions. In: Chomicki J, Saake G (eds) Logics for databases and information systems, chap 5. Kluwer, pp 117–166Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bonner AJ, Kifer M (1994) Applications of transaction logic to knowledge representation. In: ICTL, pp 67–81Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    de Bruijn J, Rezk M (2009) A logic based approach to the static analysis of production systems. In: RR, pp 254–268Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Chen W, Kifer M, Warren D (1993) HiLog: a foundation for higher-order logic programming. J Logic Program 15(3): 187–230MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Damásio CV, Alferes JJ, Leite Ja (2010) Declarative semantics for the rule interchange format production rule dialect. In: Proceedings of the 9th international semantic web conference on the semantic web (ISWC’10) volume, part I. Springer, Berlin, pp 798–813. http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1940281.1940332
  15. 15.
    Davulcu H, Kifer M, Ramakrishnan CR, Ramakrishnan IV (1998) Logic based modeling and analysis of workflows. In: PODS, pp 25–33Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Davulcu H, Kifer M, Ramakrishnan IV (2004) Ctr-s: a logic for specifying contracts in semantic web services. In: WWW, pp 144–153Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Emerson EA (1995) Temporal and modal logic. In: Handbook of theoretical computer science. Elsevier, pp 995–1072Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Enderton H (2001) A mathematical introduction to logic. Academic PressGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Gelfond M, Lifschitz V (1993) Representing action and change by logic programs. J Logic Program 17: 301–322MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Giunchiglia E, Lifschitz V (1998) An action language based on causal explanation: preliminary report. In: Proc AAAI-98. AAAI Press, pp 623–630Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Hanks S, McDermott D (1987) Nonmonotonic logic and temporal projection. Artif Intell 33(3):379–412. doi:10.1016/0004-3702(87)90043-9
  22. 22.
    Inclezan D (2009) Modular action language ALM. In: Proceedings of the 25th international conference on logic programming, ICLP ’09, pp 542–543. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-02846-5_55, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-02846-5_55
  23. 23.
    John M (1983) Situations, actions, and causal laws. Tech. Rep. Memo 2. Stanford Artificial Intelligence Project, Stanford UniversityGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Kifer M (2007) FLORA-2: an object-oriented knowledge base language. The FLORA-2 Web Site. http://flora.sourceforge.net
  25. 25.
    Kowalski R, Sergot M (1986) A logic-based calculus of events. New Gen Comput 4:67–95. doi:10.1007/BF03037383. http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=10030.10034
  26. 26.
    Lam PE, Mitchell JC, Sundaram S (2009) A formalization of HIPAA for a medical messaging system. In: Proceedings of the 6th international conference on trust, privacy and security in digital business, TrustBus ’09, pp 73–85. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-03748-1_8
  27. 27.
    Levesque HJ, Reiter R, Lespérance Y, Lin F, Scherl RB (1997) Golog: a logic programming language for dynamic domains. J Log Program 31(1-3): 59–83MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Lloyd J (1987) Foundations of logic programming, 2nd edn. Springer, BerlinMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Pearce D, Wagner G (1991) Logic programming with strong negation. In: Proceedings of the international workshop on extensions of logic programming. Springer, New York, pp 311–326. http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=111360.111371
  30. 30.
    Raymond R (1991) The frame problem in situation the calculus: a simple solution (sometimes) and a completeness result for goal regression. In: Artificial intelligence and mathematical theory of computation. Academic Press, San Diego, pp 359–380. http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=132218.132239
  31. 31.
    Rezk M, Kifer M (2011) On the equivalence between the L1 action language and partial actions in transaction logic. In: Rudolph S, Gutierrez C (eds) Web reasoning and rule systems. Lecture notes in computer science, vol 6902. Springer, Berlin, pp 185–200. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-23580-1_14
  32. 32.
    Rezk M, Kifer M (2011b) Reasoning with actions in transaction logic. In: Rudolph S, Gutierrez C (eds) Web reasoning and rule systems. Lecture notes in computer science, vol 6902. Springer, Berlin, pp 201–216Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Rezk M, Kifer M (2012) Formalizing production systems with rule-based ontologies. In: Seventh international symposium on foundations of information and knowledge systems (FOIKS). Lecture notes in computer science, vol 7153. Springer, KielGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Rezk M, Nutt W (2011) Combining production systems and ontologies. In: The fifth international conference on web reasoning and rule systems RR’11. Springer, Berlin, pp 287–293Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Roman D, Kifer M (2007) Reasoning about the behavior of semantic web services with concurrent transaction logic. In: VLDB, pp 627–638Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Roman D, Kifer M (2008) Semantic web service choreography: contracting and enactment. In: International semantic web conference, pp 550–566Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Roman D, Kifer M, Fensel D (2008) Wsmo choreography: from abstract state machines to concurrent transaction logic. In: ESWC, pp 659–673Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Thielscher M (2005) Flux: a logic programming method for reasoning agents. TPLP 5(4–5): 533–565MATHGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Thielscher M (2005) Reasoning robots: the art and science of programming robotic agents. Applied logic series. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Turner H (1996) Representing actions in default logic: a situation calculus approach. In: Proceedings of the symposium in honor of Michael Gelfond’s 50th birthdayGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    van Emden M, Kowalski R (1976) The semantics of predicate logic as a programming language. J ACM 23(4): 733–742MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Yang G, Kifer M, Zhao C (2003) FLORA-2: a rule-based knowledge representation and inference infrastructure for the Semantic Web. In: International conference on ontologies, databases and applications of semantics (ODBASE-2003). Lecture notes in computer science, vol 2888. Springer, Berlin, pp 671–688Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.KRDB Research CenterFree University of Bozen-BolzanoBolzanoItaly
  2. 2.Department of Computer ScienceStony Brook UniversityStony BrookUSA

Personalised recommendations