Frontiers of Combining Systems pp 267-283 | Cite as

# Combining Solvers in a Meta Constraint Logic Programming Architecture

## Abstract

We present a general technique for the combination and the integration of different Constraint Logic Programming (CLP) solvers. The main idea behind the work concerns the possibility of building meta CLP architectures by adding CLP solvers in a natural and effective manner. In the meta architecture, levels are constraint solvers each reasoning on constraints of the underlying system. The architecture presented starts from a meta Constraint Logic Programming general scheme. A distinguishing feature of the architectural scheme concerns its operational semantics which can be seen as a general combination method for data and control of two constraint solvers. A set of linking rules define how systems exchange data, while a set of transition rules define how systems combine their control flow. We propose a specialization of a meta CLP architecture on finite domains. The specialization concerns the possibility of combining qualitative and quantitative reasoning in a CLP framework. This combination can be useful, for example, in the field of temporal reasoning.

## Keywords

Operational Semantic Transition Rule Active Constraint Object Level Finite Domain## Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

## References

- L.Aiello, M.Cialdea, D.Nardi, M.Schaerf, “Modal and Meta-Languages: Consistency and Expressiveness”, in
*Meta-Logics and Logic Programming*, K.Apt and F.Turrini eds., MIT Press.Google Scholar - L.Aiello, C.Cecchi, D.Sartini, “Representation and Use of Metaknowledge” in
*Proceedings of the IEEE*, vol. 74, No. 10, 1986, pp. 1304–1321CrossRefGoogle Scholar - J.F.Allen, “Maintaining Knowledge About Temporal Intervals” in
*Communications of the ACM*, vol. 26, 1983, pp. 832–843.zbMATHGoogle Scholar - F.Benhamon, D.McAllester, P.Van Hentenryck, “CLP(Intervals) Revisited”,
*Tech. Report*CS-94–18 Computer Science Department, Brown University, 1994.Google Scholar - K.A.Bowen, R.A. Kowalski, “Amalgamating Language and Metalanguage in Logic Programming” in
*Logic Programming*, K. Clark and S. Tarnlund Eds., Accademic Press NY, 1982, pp. 153–173.Google Scholar - P.Codognet, G.Nardiello, “Path Consistency in clp(FD)”, in
*Proceedings of the First International Conference Constraint in Computational Logics CCL94*, 1994, pp. 201–216.Google Scholar - J. de Kleer, “An Assumption-based TMS”, in
*Artificial Intelligence*, n.28, vol 3, 1986, pp. 127–162.Google Scholar - ECLPS
^{e}User Manual Release 3.3, ECRC 1992.Google Scholar - T. Frühwirth, “Temporal reasoning with constraint handling rules”,
*Tech. Report*ECRC-94-05, ECRC, 1994, Germany.Google Scholar - J.Jaffar, J.L.Lassez, “Constraint Logic Programming”, in
*Proceedings of the Conference on Principle of Programming Languages*, Munich 1987.Google Scholar - J.Jaffar, M.J.Maher, “Constraint Logic Programming: a Survey”, in
*Journal of Logic Programming on 10 years of Logic Programming*, 1994.Google Scholar - C.Kirchner, H.Kirchner, M.Vittek, “Designing Constraint Logic Programming Languages using Computational Systems“, in
*Principles and Practice of Constraint Programming*, The NewPort Papers, P. Van Hentenrick and V. Saraswat eds. MIT Press, 1995Google Scholar - R.Kowalski, “Logic for Problem Solving”, North-Holland,1979Google Scholar
- E.Lamma, P.Mello, M.Milano, “A Meta Constraint Logic Programming Architecture for Qualitative and Quantitative Temporal Reasoning”, Technical Report DEIS-LIA-95-001, 1995.Google Scholar
- E.Lamma, P.Mello, M.Milano, “A Meta Constraint Logic Programming Scheme”, Technical Report DEIS-LIA-95-005, 1995.Google Scholar
- E.Lamma, P.Mello, M.Milano, “A Multi-Level CLP Architecture for Consistency Techniques”, submitted for publication.Google Scholar
- J.Lever, B.Richards, R.Hirsh, “Temporal Reasoning and Constraint Solving”,
*Deliverable CHIC*, ESPRIT Project EP5291, IC-Park, London, 1992.Google Scholar - J.W.Lloyd, “Foundation of Logic Programming”, Second Extended Edition, Springer-Verlag 1987.Google Scholar
- P.Maes, “Computational Reflection”, Tech. Report AI-lab VUB, Brussels, 1987.Google Scholar
- A.K. Mackworth, “Consistency in Networks of Relations”, in
*Artificial Intelligence*, vol.8, 1977, pp. 99–118.Google Scholar - I.Meiri, “Combining Qualitative and Quantitative Constraints in Temporal Reasoning”, in
*Proceedings of AAAI91*, pp.260–267Google Scholar - E.P.K.Tsang, “The Consistent Labeling Problem in Temporal Reasoning”, in
*Proceedings of AAAI87*, 1987, pp.251–255Google Scholar - P.Van Hentenryck, Y.Deville “Operational Semantics of Constraint Logic Programming over Finite Domains”,
*Tech. Report*CS-90–23 Computer Science Department, Brown University, 1990Google Scholar - M.B.Vilain, H.Kautz, P.Van Beek, “Constraint Propagation Algorithms for Temporal Reasoning: A Revised Report”, in
*Readings in Qualitative Reasoning about Physical Systems*, D.S.Weld, J.De Kleer, Morgan Kaufmann, 1990, pp.373–381Google Scholar