Advertisement

Some issues and trends in the semantics of logic programming

  • J. Jaffar
  • J -L. Lassez
  • M. J. Maher
Session 2b: Inductive Inference And Debugging
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 225)

Abstract

The simplicity and elegance of definite clauses makes this formalism attractive from a theoretical point of view. The objects in this formalism are the uninterpreted terms over the Herbrand universe. Programming however is not done exclusively in the Herbrand universe, but uses higher level concepts such as arithmetic. In that sense we can view definite clauses as the Turing machines of Logic Programming. This gap between theory and programming practice can be reduced by introducing user-oriented domains into the formalism. We have seen that this can be achieved without losing the important properties of definite clauses.

Keywords

Logic Program Logic Programming Horn Clause Denotational Semantic Closed World Assumption 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. [1]
    K.R. Apt and M.H. van Emden, Contributions to the Theory of Logic Programming, Journal of the ACM 29, 3 (1982), 841–862.Google Scholar
  2. [2]
    R. Buchi, Private communication.Google Scholar
  3. [3]
    K.L. Clark, Negation as Failure, in: Logic and Databases, H. Gallaire, J. Minker (eds.), Plenum Press, 1978.Google Scholar
  4. [4]
    A. Colmerauer, Prolog and Infinite Trees, in: Logic Programming, K.L. Clark and S.A. Tarnlund (eds.), Academic Press, New York, 1982.Google Scholar
  5. [5]
    A. Colmerauer, Solving Equations and Inequations on Finite and Infinite Trees, Proc. Conference on Fifth Generation Computer Systems, Tokyo, November 1984.Google Scholar
  6. [6]
    D. DeGroot and G. Lindstrom (eds.), Logic Programming: Relations, Functions and Equations, Prentice Hall, 1986.Google Scholar
  7. [7]
    M.H. van Emden and R.A. Kowalski, The Semantics of Predicate Logic as a Programming Language, Journal of the ACM 23, 4 (1976), 733–742.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. [8]
    M.H. van Emden and J.W. Lloyd, A Logical Reconstruction of Prolog II, Proc. 2nd. Conference on Logic Programming, Uppsala, Sweden, 1984, 35–40.Google Scholar
  9. [9]
    M. Fitting, A Kripke-Kleene Semantics for Logic Programs, Journal of Logic Programming 2, 4 (1985), 295–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. [10]
    A. Hansson and S. Haridi, Programming in a Natural Deduction Framework, Proc. Conference on Functional Languages and their Implications for Computer Architecture, Goteborg, Sweden, 1981.Google Scholar
  11. [11]
    D. Hill, LUSH-resolution and its Completeness, DCS Memo 78, Dept. of Artificial Intelligence, University of Edinburgh, 1974.Google Scholar
  12. [12]
    J. Jaffar and J-L. Lassez, Constraint Logic Programming, forthcoming.Google Scholar
  13. [13]
    J. Jaffar, J-L. Lassez and J.W. Lloyd, Completeness of the Negation-as-Failure Rule, Proc. 8th. IJCAI, Karlsruhe, 1983, 500–506.Google Scholar
  14. [14]
    J. Jaffar, J-L. Lassez and M.J. Maher, A Theory of Complete Logic Programs With Equality, Proc. Conference on Fifth Generation Computer Systems, Tokyo, November 1984, 175–184.Google Scholar
  15. [15]
    J. Jaffar, J-L. Lassez and M.J. Maher, A Logic Programming Language Scheme, in: Logic Programming: Relations, Functions and Equations, D. DeGroot, G. Lindstrom (eds.), Prentice Hall, 1986. Also Technical Report TR 84/15, University of Melbourne, 1984.Google Scholar
  16. [16]
    J. Jaffar, J-L. Lassez and M.J. Maher, Prolog II as an Instance of the Logic Programming Language Scheme, Technical Report, Monash University, 1984.Google Scholar
  17. [17]
    J. Jaffar and P.J. Stuckey, Canonical Logic Programs, Journal of Logic Programming, to appear.Google Scholar
  18. [18]
    R.A. Kowalski and D. Kuehner, Linear Resolution with Selector Function, Artificial Intelligence 2, (1971), 227–260.Google Scholar
  19. [19]
    R.A. Kowalksi, Logic for Problem Solving, North Holland, New York, 1979.Google Scholar
  20. [20]
    S. Kripke, Outline of a Theory of Truth, Journal of Philosophy 72 (1975), 690–716.Google Scholar
  21. [21]
    J-L. Lassez and M.J. Maher, The Denotational Semantics of Horn Clauses as a Production System, Proc. National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI-83), Washington D.C., August 1983, 229–231.Google Scholar
  22. [22]
    J-L. Lassez and M.J. Maher, Closures and Fairness in the Semantics of Programming Logic, Theoretical Computer Science 29, (1984), 167–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. [23]
    J-L. Lassez and M.J. Maher, Optimal Fixedpoints of Logic Programs, Theoretical Computer Science 39, (1985), 15–25.Google Scholar
  24. [24]
    J-L. Lassez, V. Nguyen and E.A. Sonenberg, Fixed Point Theorems and Semantics: A Folk Tale, Information Processing Letters 14, 3 (1982), 112–116.Google Scholar
  25. [25]
    J.W. Lloyd, Foundations Of Logic Programming, Springer-Verlag, 1984.Google Scholar
  26. [26]
    M.J. Maher, Semantics of Logic Programs, Ph.D. dissertation, University of Melbourne, 1985.Google Scholar
  27. [27]
    M.J. Maher, Equivalences of Logic Programs, Proc. 3rd. Logic Programming Conference, London, 1986.Google Scholar
  28. [28]
    Z. Manna and A. Shamir, The Theoretical Aspect of the Optimal Fixed Point, SIAM Journal on Computing 5 (1976), 414–426.Google Scholar
  29. [29]
    Z. Manna and A. Shamir, The Optimal Approach to Recursive Programs, Communications of the ACM 20 (1977), 824–831.Google Scholar
  30. [30]
    Z. Manna and A. Shamir, A New Approach to Recursive Programs, in: Perspectives on Computer Science, A.K. Jones (ed.), Academic Press, New York, 1977.Google Scholar
  31. [31]
    A. Mycroft, Logic Programs and Many-valued Logic, Proc. 1984 Symposium on Theoretical Aspects of Computer Science, M. Fontet and K. Mehlhorn (eds.), Springer Lecture Notes in Computer Science 166, 274–286.Google Scholar
  32. [32]
    L. Naish, Negation and Control in PROLOG, Ph.D. dissertation, University of Melbourne, 1985.Google Scholar
  33. [33]
    L. Naish and J-L. Lassez, Most Specific Logic Programs, Technical Report, Dept. of Computer Science, University of Melbourne, 1984.Google Scholar
  34. [34]
    R.A. O'Keefe, Towards an Algebra for Constructing Logic Programs, Proc. Symposium on Logic Programming, Boston, 1985.Google Scholar
  35. [35]
    T. Sato and H. Tamaki, Transformational Logic Program Synthesis, Proc. Conference on Fifth Generation Computer Systems, Tokyo, 1984.Google Scholar
  36. [36]
    J.W. Schultz, The Use of First-Order Predicate Calculus as a Logic Programming System, M.Sc. dissertation, University of Melbourne, 1984.Google Scholar
  37. [37]
    J. Sebelik and P. Stepanek, Horn Clause Programs Suggested by Recursive Function, Logic Programming, K.L. Clark and S.A. Tranlung (eds.), Academic Press, New York, 1982.Google Scholar
  38. [38]
    J.C. Shepherdson, Negation as Failure: A Comparison of Clark's Completed Data Base and Reiter's Closed World Assumption, Journal of Logic Programming 1, 1 (1984), 51–79.Google Scholar
  39. [39]
    J.C. Shepherdson, Negation as Failure II, Journal of Logic Programming 2, 3 (1985), 185–202.Google Scholar
  40. [40]
    S.A. Tarnlund, Horn Clause Computability, BIT 17, 2 (1977), 215–226.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1986

Authors and Affiliations

  • J. Jaffar
    • 1
  • J -L. Lassez
    • 1
  • M. J. Maher
    • 1
  1. 1.IBM T.J. Watson Research CenterYorktown HeightsUSA

Personalised recommendations