Logic programming semantics made easy

  • Els Laenens
  • Dirk Vermeir
  • Carlo Zaniolo
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 623)


We propose a new model-theoretic semantics for logic programs, called pure semantics, based on the notions of unfounded set and assumption set. The pure semantics emerges from the observation that major logic programming semantics have the following feature in common: given an ’intended model’ M, the set of negative literals in M corresponds exactly with the greatest unfounded set w.r.t. the set of positive literals in M. In other words, a model contains redundant information as its negative part can be described in function of its positive part. Thus, the total models and the partial models of programs can now be characterized by a set of positive literals. Based on this idea, we develop the pure semantics for logic programs. The result is a remarkably simple semantics that unifies previous approaches and explains how partial model semantics follows from a weaker closed world assumption.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Gel88a.
    A. Van Gelder, K. Ross, and J. S. Schlipf, The Well-Founded Semantics for General Logic Programs, 1988. UCSC-CRL-88-16Google Scholar
  2. Gel88b.
    M. Gelfond and V. Lifschitz, “'The Stable Model Semantics for Logic Programming,” in Proc. of the Intl. Conf. on Logic Programming, pp. 1071–1079, 1988.Google Scholar
  3. Gel89a.
    M. Gelfond and V. Lifschitz, Logic Programs with Classical Negation, 1989. ManuscriptGoogle Scholar
  4. Lae90a.
    E. Laenens and D. Vermeir, “A Fixpoint Semantics of Ordered Logic,” Journal of Logic and Computation, vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 159–185, 1990.Google Scholar
  5. Lae90b.
    E. Laenens, “Foundations of Ordered Logic,” PhD Thesis, University of Antwerp (UIA), 1990.Google Scholar
  6. Lae90c.
    E. Laenens, D. Vermeir, and D. Sacca, “Extending logic programming,” in Proceedings of the SIGMOD conference, pp. 184–193, 1990.Google Scholar
  7. Lae91a.
    E. Laenens, D. Vermeir, and C. Zaniolo, “Pure models for logic programs: a simplification and unification of logic programming semantics,” Technical report, 91–31, 1991.Google Scholar
  8. Lae92a.
    E. Laenens, A universally consistent semantics for extended logic programs, Submitted for puclication, 1992.Google Scholar
  9. Prz89a.
    T. Przymusinski, “Three-Valued Formalizations of Non-Monotonic Reasoning and Logic Programming,” Proc. 1st Int. Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning, pp. 341–349, 1989.Google Scholar
  10. Prz90a.
    T. Przymusinski, “Well-founded semantics coincides with three-valued stable semantics,” Fundamenta Informaticae, vol. 13, pp. 445–463, IOS Press, 1990.Google Scholar
  11. Sac90a.
    D. Sacca and C. Zaniolo, “Stable models and Non-determinism for logic programs with negation,” Proc. ACM Symp. on Principles of Database Systems, 1990.Google Scholar
  12. You90a.
    Jia-Huai You and Li Yan Yuan, “Three-Valued Formalization of Logic Programming: Is It Needed?,” in Proc. of the PODS'90 conference, pp. 172–182, 1990.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1992

Authors and Affiliations

  • Els Laenens
    • 1
  • Dirk Vermeir
    • 1
  • Carlo Zaniolo
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of Antwerp (UIA)WilrijkBelgium
  2. 2.MCCAustinUSA

Personalised recommendations