Exploiting Constraints for Domain Managing in CLP(FD)

  • Marco Gavanelli
  • Evelina Lamma
  • Paola Mello
  • Michela Milano
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 2309)


Constraint Logic Programming languages on Finite Domains CLP(FD) provide a declarative framework for dealing with problems in Artificial Intelligence (AI). However, in many applications, domains are not known at the beginning of the computation and must be computed. The domain computation can be time-consuming, since elements can be retrieved through an expensive acquisition process from the outer world. In this paper, we introduce a CLP language that treats domains as first-class objects, and allows the definition of domains through constraints in a CLP(FD) environment. We define operations and properties on variables and domains.

The language can be implemented on top of different CLP systems, exploiting thus different semantics for domains. We state the specifications that the employed system should provide, and we show that two different CLP systems (Conjunto and log) can be effectively used.


Constraint Satisfaction Problem Operational Semantic Domain Element Binary Constraint Constraint Logic Programming 
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.
    H. Abelson, G.J. Sussman, and J. Sussman. Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs. MIT Press, USA, 6 edition, 1985.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    R. Barruffi, E. Lamma, P. Mello, and M. Milano. Least commitment on variable binding in presence of incomplete knowledge. In Proceedings of the European Conference on Planning (ECP99), 1999.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    M. Carlsson, J. Widén, J. Andersson, S. Andersson, K. Boortz, H. Nilsson, and T. Sjöland. SICStus Prolog user’s manual. Technical Report T91:15, Swedish Institute of Computer Science, June 1995.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    P. Codognet and D. Diaz. Compiling constraints in clp(FD). Journal of Logic Programming, 27(3):185–226, June 1996.zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    J. Cohen, P. Koiran, and C. Perrin. Meta-level interpretation of CLP(lists). In F. Benhamou and A. Colmerauer, eds., Constraint Logic Programming-Selected Research, pages 457–481, 1993.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    R. Cucchiara, M. Gavanelli, E. Lamma, P. Mello, M. Milano, and M. Piccardi. Constraint propagation and value acquisition: why we should do it interactively. In T. Dean, ed., Sixteenth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pages 468–477, Stockholm, Sweden, July 31–August 6 1999. Morgan Kaufmann.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    R. Cucchiara, M. Gavanelli, E. Lamma, P. Mello, M. Milano, and M. Piccardi. Extending CLP(FD) with interactive data acquisition for 3D visual object recognition. In Proceedings PACLP’99, pages 137–155, 1999.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    M.J. Dent and R.E. Mercer. Minimal forward checking. In Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Tools with Artificial Intelligence, pages 432–438, 1994.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    A. Dovier, C. Piazza, E. Pontelli, and G. Rossi. Sets and constraint logic programming. ACM TOPLAS, 22(5):861–931, 2000.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    A. Dovier, A. Policriti, and G. Rossi. Integrating lists, multisets, and sets in a logic programming framework. In F. Baader and K. U. Schulz, eds., Frontiers of Combining Systems: 1st International Workshop, pages 303–320, Munich, Germany, March 1996. Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    M. Gavanelli, E. Lamma, P. Mello, and M. Milano. Channelling information through FD domains. Technical report, LIA, DEIS, University of Bologna, 2001.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    C. Gervet. Propagation to reason about sets: Definition and implementation of a practical language. Constraints, 1:191–244, 1997.zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    J. Jaffar, M.J. Maher, K. Marriott, and P. Stuckey. The semantics of constraint logic programs. Journal of Logic Programming, 37(1–3):1–46, 1998.zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    C.A. Knoblock, S. Minton, J.L. Ambite, M. Muslea, J. Oh, and M. Frank. Mixedinitiative, multi-source information assistants. In Tenth International World Wide Web Conference, pages 697–707, Hong Kong, China, May 1–5 2001. ACM.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    B. Legard and E. Legros. Short overview of the CLPS system. In 3rd Int. Symposium on Programming Language Implementation and Logic Programming, PLILP91, LNCS, pages 431–433, Passau, Germany, August 1991. Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    A.K. Mackworth. Consistency in networks of relations. Artificial Intelligence, 8:99–118, 1977.zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    D. Mailharro. A classification and constraint-based framework for configuration. Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing, 12:383–397, 1998.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    T. Schiex, J.C. Régin, C. Gaspin, and G. Verfaillie. Lazy arc consistency. In Proc. of the 13th National Conference on Artificial Intelligence and the 8th Innovative Applications of Artificial Intelligence Conference, pages 216–221, Menlo Park, August 4–8 1996. AAAI Press / MIT Press.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    M. Sergot. A query-the-user facility for logic programming. In P. Degano and E. Sandewall, eds., Integrated Interactive Computing Systems, pages 27–41. North-Holland, 1983.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    M. Zweben and M. Eskey. Constraint satisfaction with delayed evaluation. In IJCAI 89, pages 875–880, Detroit, August 20–25 1989.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • Marco Gavanelli
    • 1
  • Evelina Lamma
    • 1
  • Paola Mello
    • 2
  • Michela Milano
    • 2
  1. 1.Dip. di IngegneriaUniversity of FerraraFerraraItaly
  2. 2.DEISUniversity of BolognaBolognaItaly

Personalised recommendations