Modular logic programming and generalized quantifiers

  • Thomas Eiter
  • Georg Gottlob
  • Helmut Veith
Regular Papers
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1265)


The research on systems of logic programming with modules has followed two mainstreams, programming-in-the-large, where compositional operators are provided for combining separate and independent modules, and programming-in-the-small, which aims at enhancing logic programming with new logical connectives.

In this paper, we present a general model theoretic approach to modular logic programming which combines programming in-the-large and in-the-small in a satisfactory way. Rather than inventing completely new constructs, however, we resort to a well-known concept in formal logic: generalized quantifiers. We show how generalized quantifiers can be incorporated into logic programs, both for Horn logic programs as well as in the presence of negation. Our basic observation is then that a logic program can be seen as a generalized quantifier, and we obtain a semantics for modular logic programs this way.

Generalized quantifiers in logic programs gives rise to interesting classes of logic programs. We present a taxonomy of natural such classes, and investigate their properties. In particular, their expressive power over finite structures is analyzed.


generalized quantifiers modular logic programming stratification stable models expressive power 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    K. Apt, H. Blair, and A. Walker. Towards a Theory of Declarative Knowledge. In Minker [27], pp. 89–148.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    A. Badia, M. Gyssens, and D. V. Gucht. Query languages with generalized quantifiers. In R.Ramakrishnan, editor, Applications of Logic Databases, pp. 235–258. Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1995.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    J. Barwise and R. Cooper. Generalized Quantifiers and Natural Language. Linguistic and Philosophy, 4:159–219, 1981.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    M. Bugliesi, E. Lamma, and P. Mello. Modularity in Logic Programming. J. Logic Programming, 19/20:443–502, 1994.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    A. Dawar. Generalized Quantifiers and Logical Reducibilities. J. Logic and Computation, 5(2):213–226, 1995.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    A. Dawar, G. Gottlob, and L. Hella. Capturing Relativized Complexity Classes without Order. Mathematical Logic Quarterly, to appear. Technical Report CD-TR 96/105, CD Lab for Expert Systems, TU Vienna, 1996.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    J. Dix. A Classification Theory of Semantics of Normal Logic Programs: Strong Properties. Fundamenta Informaticae, 22:227–255, 1995.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    J. Dix. A Classification Theory of Semantics of Normal Logic Programs: Weak Properties. Fundamenta Informaticae, 22:257–288, 1995.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    J. Dix. Semantics of Logic Programs: Their Intuitions and Formal Properties. An Overview. In Logic, Action and Information. Proc. Konstanz Colloquium in Logic and Information (LogIn'92), pp. 241–329. DeGmyter, 1995.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    T. Eiter, G. Gottlob, and N. Leone. Abduction From Logic Programs: Semantics and Complexity. Theoretical Computer Science, to appear.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    T. Eiter, G. Gottlob, and H. Mannila. Adding Disjunction to Datalog. In Proc. PODS '94, pp. 267–278, 1994.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    T. Eiter and G. Gottlob. Expressiveness of Stable Model Semantics for Disjunctive Logic Programs with Functions. J. Logic Programming, to appear. CD-TR 96/103, CD Lab for Expert Systems, TU Vienna.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    T. Eiter, G. Gottlob, and H. Veith. Logic Programming: Modularity and Revision. In Abstract presented at the Workshop Logic Databases: The Meaning of Change, Dagstuhl, September 1996.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    H. Gaifman and E. Shapiro. Fully Abstract Compositional Semantics for Logic Programs. In Proc. 16th ACM Symp. POPL, pp. 134–142. 1989Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    M. Garey and D. S. Johnson. Computers and Intractability — A Guide to the Theory of NP-Gompleteness. W. H. Freeman, New York, 1979.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    M. Gelfond and V. Lifschitz. The Stable Model Semantics for Logic Programming. In Proc. Fifth Intl CSLP, pp. 1070–1080, 1988.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    L. Giordano and A. Martelli. Structuring Logic Programs: A Modal Approach. J.Logic Programming, 21:59–94, 1994.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    G. Gottlob. Relativized Logspace and Generalized Quantifiers over Finite Structures. In Proc. IEEE LICS '95, pages 65–78, 1995. Extended version Journal of Symbolic Logic, to appear.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    L. Henkin. Some Remarks on Infinitely Long Formulas. In Infinitistic Methods, Proc. Symp. on Foundations of Mathematics, pp. 167–183. Warsaw, Panstwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe and Pergamon Press, 1961.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    P. Hsu and D. Parker. Improving SQL with Generalized Quantifiers. In Proc. 11th Intl Conference on Data Engineering, 1995.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    P. Lindström. First Order Predicate Logic with Generalized Quantifiers. Theoria, 32:186–195, 1966.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    J. Lloyd. Foundations of Logic Programming. Springer, Berlin, 1984.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    P. Mancarella and D. Pedreschi. An Algebra of Logic Programs. In Proc. ICLP'88, pp. 1006–1023. MIT-Press, 1988.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    W. Marek and M. Truszczyński. Revision specifications by means of revision programs. In Logics in AI. Proc. JELIA '94, LNAI, 1994.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    W. Marek and M. Truszczyński. Revision Programming, database updates and integrity constraints. In Proc. ICDT '95, LNCS 893, pp. 368–382, 1995.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    D. Miller. A Theory of Modules in Logic Programming. In Proc. ILPS '86, pp.106–114. 1986.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    J. Minker, editor. Foundations of Deductive Databases and Logic Programming. Morgan Kaufman, 1988.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    A. Mostowski. On a Generalization of Quantifiers. Fundamenta Mathematicae, 44:12–36, 1957.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    R. O'Keefe. Towards an Algebra for Constructing Logic Programs. In Proc. IEEE Symposium on Logic Programming, pp. 152–160. IEEE CS Press, 1985.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    C. H. Papadimitriou. Computational Complexity. Addison-Wesley, 1994.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    T. Przymusinski. On the Declarative and Procedural Semantics of Stratified Deductive Databases. In Minker [27], pp. 193–216.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    T. Przymusiński and H. Turner. Update by Means of Inference Rules. In Proc. LPNMR '95, LNCS 928, pp. 156–174, 1995.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    D. Saccá. Deterministic and Nondeterministic Stable Model Semantics for Unbound DATALOG Queries. In Proc. ICDT-95, LNCS 893, pp. 353–367, 1995.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    J. Schlipf. The Expressive Powers of Logic Programming Semantics. J. Computer and System Sciences, 51(1):64–86, 1995. Abstract in Proc. PODS 90, pp. 196–204.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    I. Stewart. Logical Characterizations of Bounded Query Classes I: Logspace oracle machines. Fundamenta Informaticae, 18:65–92, 1993.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    I. Stewart. Logical Characterizations of Bounded Query Classes II: Logspace oracle machines. Fundamenta Informaticae, 18:93–105, 1993.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    K. Wagner. Bounded Query Classes. SIAM J. Comp., 19(5):833–846, 1990.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1997

Authors and Affiliations

  • Thomas Eiter
    • 1
  • Georg Gottlob
    • 2
  • Helmut Veith
    • 2
  1. 1.AG InformatikUniversity of GiessenGießenGermany
  2. 2.Information Systems DepartmentTU ViennaWienAustria

Personalised recommendations