Cardinality Constraints in Disjunctive Deductive Databases

  • Dietmar Seipel
  • Ulrich Geske
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 2582)


We investigate cardinality constraints of the form M ↪θ K, where M is a set and θ is one of the comparison operators “=”, “≤”, or “≥”; such a constraint states that “exactly”, “at most”, or “at least”, respectively, K elements out of the set M have to be chosen.

We show how a set C of constraints can be represented by means of a positive-disjunctive deductive database P C , such that the models of P C correspond to the solutions of C. This allows for embedding cardinality constraints into applications dealing with incomplete knowledge.

We also present a sound calculus represented by a definite logic program P cc , which allows for directly reasoning with sets of exactly-cardinality constraints (i.e., where θ is “=”). Reasoning with P cc is very efficient, and it can be used for performance reasons before P C is evaluated. For obtaining completeness, however, P C is necessary, since we show the theoretical result that a sound and complete calculus for exactly- cardinality constraints does not exist.


disjunctive logic programming constraint logic programming cardinality constraints hyperresolution 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    S. Ceri, G. Gottlob, L. Tanca: Logic Programming and Databases, Springer, 1990.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    P. Van Hentenryck, Y. Deville: The Cardinality Operator: A new Logical Connective for Constraint Logic Programming, Proc. 8th Intl. Conference on Logic Programming 1991 (ICLP’91), MIT Press, 1991, pages 745–759.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    R. Kaye: Minesweeper is NP-complete, Mathematical Intelligencer, 22(2), 2000, pages 9–15.zbMATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    J.W. Lloyd: Foundations of Logic Programming, Second Edition, Springer, 1987.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    J. Lobo, J. Minker, A. Rajasekar: Foundations of Disjunctive Logic Programming, MIT Press, 1992.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    K. Marriott, P. Stuckey: Programming with Constraints-An Introduction, MIT Press, 1998.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    J. Minker, A. Rajasekar: A Fixpoint Semantics for Disjunctive Logic Programs. Journal of Logic Programming, 9(1), 1990, pages 45–74.CrossRefMathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    I. Niemelä, P. Simmons: Extending the Smodels System with Cardinality and Weight Constraints, In Jack Minker (ed.): Logic-Based Artificial Intelligence, Kluwer, 2000, pages 491–522.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    D. Seipel, J. Minker, C. Ruiz: Model Generation and State Generation for Disjunctive Logic Programs, Journal of Logic Programming, 32(1), 1997, pages 48–69.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    D. Seipel, H. Thöne: DisLog-A System for Reasoning in Disjunctive Deductive Databases, Proc. Intl. Workshop on the Deductive Approach to Information Systems and Databases 1994 (DAISD’94), pages 325–343.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    D. Seipel: DisLog-A Disjunctive Deductive Database Prototype, Proc. 12th Workshop on Logic Programming (WLP’97), 1997, pages 136–143. DisLog is available at
  12. 12.
    D. Seipel, U. Geske: Cardinality Constraints in Disjunctive Deductive Databases, In Workshop on Deductive Databases and Logic Programming (DDLP’2000) at the International Conference on Applications of Prolog (INAP’2000), 2000.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    A.H. Yahya: Minimal Model Generation for Refined Answering of Generalized Queries in Disjunctive Deductive Databases. Journal of Data and Knowledge Engineering, 34(3), 2000, pages 219–249.zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Dietmar Seipel
    • 1
  • Ulrich Geske
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Computer Science Am HublandUniversity of WürzburgWürzburgGermany
  2. 2.Fraunhofer First BerlinBerlinGermany

Personalised recommendations