Piece resolution: Towards larger perspectives

  • Stéphane Coulondre
  • Eric Salvat
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1453)


This paper focuses on two aspects of piece resolution in backward chaining for conceptual graph rules [13]. First, as conceptual graphs admit a first-order logic interpretation, inferences can be proven by classical theorem provers. Nevertheless, they do not use the notion of piece, which is a graph notion. So we define piece resolution over a class of first-order logical formulae: the logical rules. An implementation of this procedure has been done, and we compare the results with the classical SLD-resolution (i.e. Prolog). We point out several interesting results: it appears that the number of backtracks is strongly reduced. Second, we point out the similarities between these rules and database data dependencies. The implication problem for dependencies is to decide whether a given dependency is logically implied by a given set of dependencies. A proof procedure for the implication problem, called “chase”, was already studied. The chase is a bottom-up procedure: from hypothesis to conclusion. This paper introduces a new proof procedure which is topdown: from conclusion to hypothesis. Indeed, we show that the implication problem for dependencies can be reduced to the existence of a piece resolution.


Logical Rule Horn Clause Existential Quantifier Conceptual Graph Proof Procedure 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    S. Abiteboul, R. Hull, and V. Vianu. Foundations of Databases. Addison-Wesley, Reading, Mass., 1995.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Catriel Beeri and Moshe Y. Vardi. A proof procedure for data dependencies. Journal of the ACM, 31(4): 718–741, October 1984.zbMATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Chin-Liang Chang and Richard Char-Tung Lee. Symbolic Logic and Mechanical Theorem Proving. Academic Press, New York, 1973.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    M. Chein and M.-L. Mugnier. Représenter des connaissances et raisonner avec des graphes. Revue d'Intelligence Artificielle, 10(1): 7–56, 1996.zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Alain Colmerauer. Prolog in 10 figures. Communications of the ACM, 28(12): 1296–1310, December 1985.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Stéphane Coulondre. Exploitation de la notion de pièce des règles de graphes conceptuels en programmation logique et en bases de données. Master's thesis, Université Montpellier II, 1997.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Jean Fargues, Marie-Claude Landau, Anne Dugourd, and Laurent Catach. Conceptual graphs for semantics and knowledge processing. IBM Journal of Research and Development, 30(1): 70–79, January 1986.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bikash Chandra Ghosh and V. Wuwongse. A direct proof procedure for definite conceptual graph programs. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 954, 1995.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    R. A. Kowalski. Predicate logic as a programming language. Proc. IFIP 4, pages 569–574, 1974.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    J. W. Lloyd. Foundations of Logic Programming, Second Edition. Springer-Verlag, 1987.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Donald W. Loveland. A simplified format for the model elimination procedure. Journal of the ACM, 16(3): 233–248, July 1969.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Eric Salvat. Raisonner avec des opérations de graphes: graphes conceptuels et règles d'inférence. PhD thesis, Université Montpellier II, Montpellier, France, December 1997.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Eric Salvat and Marie-Laure Mugnier. Sound and complete forward and backward chainings of graph rules. In Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Conceptual Structures (ICCS-96), volume 1115 of LNAI, pages 248–262, Berlin, Augustl9–22 1996. Springer.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Moshe Y. Vardi. The implication and finite implication problems for typed template dependencies. Journal of Computer and System Sciences, 28(1): 3–28, February 1984.zbMATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1998

Authors and Affiliations

  • Stéphane Coulondre
    • 1
  • Eric Salvat
    • 1
  1. 1.L.I.R.M.M. (U.M.R. 9928 Université Montpellier II/C.N.R.S.)Montpellier cedex 5France

Personalised recommendations