Non-procedural logic programming

  • Seppo Keronen
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 798)


We present a logic programming language where both problem domain and computational knowledge are expressed in logic. A logic program in this language consists of an object-program and a number of meta-programs. The object program, a collection of formulae, is a description of the problem domain of interest. The meta-programs, also just collections of formulae, specify desired computational behaviours. The object-program and meta-programs are compiled together to produce a single, efficient procedural logic (Prolog) program.


  1. 1.
    Harvey Abramson and M.H. Rogers (eds). Meta-Programming in Logic Programming. MIT Press, 1989.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Kenneth A. Bowen and Robert A. Kowalski. ‘Amalgamating Language and Metalanguage in Logic Programming', in K. L. Clark and S-Å. Tärnlund (eds). Logic Programming. Academic Press, 1982.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Mats Carlsson et al. SICStus Prolog User's Manual (version 2.1). Swedish Institute of Computer Science, 1991.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Randall Davis. ‘Applications of Meta Level Knowledge in the Construction, Maintenance and Use of Large Knowledge Bases', in R. Davis and D. Lenat. Knowledge-Based Systems in Artificial Intelligence. McGraw-Hill, 1980.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    K. Eshghi. Meta-Language in Logic Programming. PhD thesis, Department of Computing, Imperial College, 1986.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Herve Gallaire and Claudine Lasserre. ‘Metalevel Control for Logic Programs', in K. L. Clark and S-Å. Tärnlund (eds). Logic Programming. Academic Press, 1982.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Lars Hallnäs and Peter Schroeder-Heister. A Proof Theoretic Approach to Logic Programming. I, Clauses as Rules. Journal of Logic and Computation 1(2) 261–283, 1991.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Patrick J. Hayes. Computation and Deduction. Mathematical Foundations of Computer Science — 2nd Symposium. Czechoslovakian Academy of Sciences, 1973.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Seppo Keronen. Computational Natural Deduction. PhD Thesis, Department of Computer Science, Australian National University, Canberra, 1991.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Robert Kowalski. Algorithm = Logic + Control. Communications of the ACM 22 424–436, July 1979.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Pattie Maes and Daniele Nardi (eds). Meta-Level Architectures and Reflection. Elsevier, 1988.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    L. M. Pereira. ‘Logic Control with Logic', in J.A. Campbell (ed). Implementations of Prolog. Ellis Horwood, 1984.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Leon Sterling and Arun Lakhotia. ‘Composing Prolog Meta-Interpreters.’ in Bowen and Kowalski (eds). Logic Programming: Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference and Symposium. MIT Press, 1988.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Leon Sterling and L.U. Yalcinalp. Explaining Prolog-Based Expert Systems Using a Layered Meta-Interpreter. Proceedings 11th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence. Morgan-Kaufmann, 1989.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Frank van Harmelen. Meta-level Inference Systems. Morgan Kaufmann, 1991.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Richard Weybrauch. Prolegomena to a Theory of Mechanised Formal Reasoning. Artificial Intelligence 13 133–170, 1980.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1994

Authors and Affiliations

  • Seppo Keronen
    • 1
  1. 1.Wilhelm-Schickard-InstitutUniversität TübingenTübingenGermany

Personalised recommendations