Advertisement

Modular Nonmonotonic Logic Programming Revisited

  • Minh Dao-Tran
  • Thomas Eiter
  • Michael Fink
  • Thomas Krennwallner
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 5649)

Abstract

Recently, enabling modularity aspects in Answer Set Programming (ASP) has gained increasing interest to ease the composition of program parts to an overall program. In this paper, we focus on modular nonmonotonic logic programs (MLP) under the answer set semantics, whose modules may have contextually dependent input provided by other modules. Moreover, (mutually) recursive module calls are allowed. We define a model-theoretic semantics for this extended setting, show that many desired properties of ordinary logic programming generalize to our modular ASP, and determine the computational complexity of the new formalism. We investigate the relationship of modular programs to disjunctive logic programs with well-defined input/output interface (DLP-functions) and show that they can be embedded into MLPs.

Keywords

Knowledge Representation Answer Set Programming Modular Logic Programming 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Lifschitz, V., Turner, H.: Splitting a Logic Program. In: ICLP 1994, pp. 23–37. MIT Press, Cambridge (1994)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Janhunen, T., Oikarinen, E., Tompits, H., Woltran, S.: Modularity Aspects of Disjunctive Stable Models. In: Baral, C., Brewka, G., Schlipf, J. (eds.) LPNMR 2007. LNCS, vol. 4483, pp. 175–187. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Oikarinen, E., Janhunen, T.: Achieving compositionality of the stable model semantics for Smodels programs. Theory Pract. Log. Program. 8(5–6), 717–761 (2008)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Eiter, T., Gottlob, G., Veith, H.: Modular Logic Programming and Generalized Quantifiers. In: Fuhrbach, U., Dix, J., Nerode, A. (eds.) LPNMR 1997. LNCS, vol. 1265, pp. 290–309. Springer, Heidelberg (1997)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Baral, C., Dzifcak, J., Takahashi, H.: Macros, Macro calls and Use of Ensembles in Modular Answer Set Programming. In: Etalle, S., Truszczyński, M. (eds.) ICLP 2006. LNCS, vol. 4079, pp. 376–390. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Calimeri, F., Ianni, G.: Template programs for Disjunctive Logic Programming: An operational semantics. AI Commun. 19(3), 193–206 (2006)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bugliesi, M., Lamma, E., Mello, P.: Modularity in Logic Programming. J. Logic Progr. 19/20, 443–502 (1994)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Brogi, A., Mancarella, P., Pedreschi, D., Turini, F.: Modular logic programming. ACM Trans. Program. Lang. Syst. 16(4), 1361–1398 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Faber, W., Leone, N., Pfeifer, G.: Recursive Aggregates in Disjunctive Logic Programs: Semantics and Complexity. In: Alferes, J.J., Leite, J. (eds.) JELIA 2004. LNCS, vol. 3229, pp. 200–212. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Eiter, T., Ianni, G., Schindlauer, R., Tompits, H.: Effective Integration of Declarative Rules with external Evaluations for Semantic Web Reasoning. In: Sure, Y., Domingue, J. (eds.) ESWC 2006. LNCS, vol. 4011, pp. 273–287. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gelfond, M., Lifschitz, V.: Classical negation in logic programs and deductive databases. New Gener. Comput. 9, 365–385 (1991)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Dantsin, E., Eiter, T., Gottlob, G., Voronkov, A.: Complexity and Expressive Power of Logic Programming. ACM Comput. Surv. 33(3), 374–425 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Tari, L., Baral, C., Anwar, S.: A Language for Modular Answer Set Programming: Application to ACC Tournament Scheduling. In: ASP 2005. CEUR WS, pp. 277–293 (2005)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Balduccini, M.: Modules and Signature Declarations for A-Prolog: Progress Report. In: Workshop on Software Engineering for Answer Set Programming (SEA 2007) (2007)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Polleres, A., Feier, C., Harth, A.: Rules with Contextually Scoped Negation. In: Sure, Y., Domingue, J. (eds.) ESWC 2006. LNCS, vol. 4011, pp. 332–347. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Analyti, A., Antoniou, G., Damásio, C.V.: A principled framework for modular web rule bases and its semantics. In: KR 2008. AAAI Press, Menlo Park (2008)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Minh Dao-Tran
    • 1
  • Thomas Eiter
    • 1
  • Michael Fink
    • 1
  • Thomas Krennwallner
    • 1
  1. 1.Institut für InformationssystemeTechnische Universität WienViennaAustria

Personalised recommendations