Combining Solvers in a Meta Constraint Logic Programming Architecture

Part of the Applied Logic Series book series (APLS, volume 3)


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.


Operational Semantic Transition Rule Active Constraint Object Level Finite Domain 
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. 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
  2. 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
  3. J.F.Allen, “Maintaining Knowledge About Temporal Intervals” in Communications of the ACM, vol. 26, 1983, pp. 832–843.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. F.Benhamon, D.McAllester, P.Van Hentenryck, “CLP(Intervals) Revisited”, Tech. Report CS-94–18 Computer Science Department, Brown University, 1994.Google Scholar
  5. 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
  6. 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
  7. J. de Kleer, “An Assumption-based TMS”, in Artificial Intelligence, n.28, vol 3, 1986, pp. 127–162.Google Scholar
  8. ECLPSe User Manual Release 3.3, ECRC 1992.Google Scholar
  9. T. Frühwirth, “Temporal reasoning with constraint handling rules”, Tech. Report ECRC-94-05, ECRC, 1994, Germany.Google Scholar
  10. J.Jaffar, J.L.Lassez, “Constraint Logic Programming”, in Proceedings of the Conference on Principle of Programming Languages, Munich 1987.Google Scholar
  11. J.Jaffar, M.J.Maher, “Constraint Logic Programming: a Survey”, in Journal of Logic Programming on 10 years of Logic Programming, 1994.Google Scholar
  12. 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
  13. R.Kowalski, “Logic for Problem Solving”, North-Holland,1979Google Scholar
  14. 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
  15. E.Lamma, P.Mello, M.Milano, “A Meta Constraint Logic Programming Scheme”, Technical Report DEIS-LIA-95-005, 1995.Google Scholar
  16. E.Lamma, P.Mello, M.Milano, “A Multi-Level CLP Architecture for Consistency Techniques”, submitted for publication.Google Scholar
  17. J.Lever, B.Richards, R.Hirsh, “Temporal Reasoning and Constraint Solving”, Deliverable CHIC, ESPRIT Project EP5291, IC-Park, London, 1992.Google Scholar
  18. J.W.Lloyd, “Foundation of Logic Programming”, Second Extended Edition, Springer-Verlag 1987.Google Scholar
  19. P.Maes, “Computational Reflection”, Tech. Report AI-lab VUB, Brussels, 1987.Google Scholar
  20. A.K. Mackworth, “Consistency in Networks of Relations”, in Artificial Intelligence, vol.8, 1977, pp. 99–118.Google Scholar
  21. I.Meiri, “Combining Qualitative and Quantitative Constraints in Temporal Reasoning”, in Proceedings of AAAI91, pp.260–267Google Scholar
  22. E.P.K.Tsang, “The Consistent Labeling Problem in Temporal Reasoning”, in Proceedings of AAAI87, 1987, pp.251–255Google Scholar
  23. 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
  24. 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

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1996

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.DEISUniversità di BolognaItalia
  2. 2.Istituto di IngegneriaUniversità di FerraraItalia

Personalised recommendations