Procedural interpretation of non-horn logic programs

  • Jack Minker
  • Arcot Rajasekar
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 310)


Procedural interpretation in logic programming consists of two parts: answering positive queries and answering negative queries. Answering positive queries can be done using a general theorem prover. To answer negative queries it is necessary, in most practical cases, to augment a theorem prover with default rules. Such an approach has been taken with Horn clause logic programs in the definition of SLDNF-resolution. We describe a similar proof procedure for non-Horn programs and define an inference system, SLINF-resolution, for this purpose. SLI-resolution is used as the main inference mechanism and a weaker form of the generalized closed world assumption, called the Support-for-Negation Rule, is used as the default rule for answering negative queries.

Keywords and phrases

generalized closed world assumption logic programming negation non-horn programs procedural interpretation support-for-negation 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. [AvE82]
    K.R. Apt and M.H. van Emden. Contributions to the Theory of Logic Programming. J.ACM, 29(3):841–862, 1982.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. [CL73]
    C. L. Chang and R. C. T. Lee. Symbolic Logic and Mechanical Theorem Proving. Academic Press, New York, 1973.Google Scholar
  3. [Cla78]
    K. L. Clark. Negation as Failure. In H. Gallaire J. Minker, editor, Logic and Data Bases, pages 293–322, Plenum Press, New York, 1978.Google Scholar
  4. [Hil74]
    R. Hill. LUSH Resolution and its Completeness. Technical Report, University of Edinburgh School of Artificial Intelligence, August 1974.Google Scholar
  5. [KK71]
    R. A. Kowalski and D. Kuehner. Linear Resolution with Selection Function. Artificial Intelligence, 2:227–260, 1971.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. [Llo84]
    J.W. Lloyd. Foundations of Logic Programming. Springer-Verlag, 1984.Google Scholar
  7. [Lov78]
    D.W. Loveland. Automated Theorem Proving: A Logical Basis. North-Holland Publishing Co., 1978.Google Scholar
  8. [Min82]
    J. Minker. On Indefinite Databases and the Closed World Assumption. Springer-Verlag, 1982.Google Scholar
  9. [MR87]
    J. Minker and A. Rajasekar. A Fixpoint Semantics for Non-Horn Logic Programs. July 1987. Submitted to Journal of Logic Programming.Google Scholar
  10. [MZ82]
    J. Minker and G. Zanon. An extension to linear resolution with selection function. In Information Processing Letters, pages 191–194, June 1982.Google Scholar
  11. [Pla84]
    D.A. Plaisted. An Efficient Bug Location Algorithm. In Proc. Second Int. Conf. on Logic Programming, Uppsala, 1984.Google Scholar
  12. [Prz86]
    T. Przymusinski. Query answering in circumscriptive and closed world theories. Proc. Amer. Assoc. for Artificial Intelligence '86, 186–190, August 1986.Google Scholar
  13. [Rei78]
    R. Reiter. On closed world data bases. In H. Gallaire J. Minker, editor, Logic and Data Bases, pages 55–76, Plenum Press, New York, 1978.Google Scholar
  14. [She88]
    J.C. Shepherdson. Negation in logic programming. In J. Minker, editor, Foundations of Deductive Databases and Logic Programming, Morgan-Kaufman Pub., 1988.Google Scholar
  15. [Van88]
    A. Van Gelder. Negation as failure using tight derivations for general logic programs. In J. Minker, editor, Foundations of Deductive Databases and Logic Programming, Morgan-Kaufmann, 1988.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1988

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jack Minker
    • 1
    • 2
  • Arcot Rajasekar
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of MarylandCollege Park
  2. 2.Institute for Advanced Computer StudiesUniversity of MarylandCollege Park

Personalised recommendations