Advertisement

Open logic theories

  • Antonio Brogi
  • Evelina Lamma
  • Paola Mello
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 596)

Abstract

The handling of evolving knowledge as well as of incomplete knowledge is one of the main issues in knowledge representation systems. On the one hand, evolving knowledge in logic programming can be modeled by providing suitable operators for the dynamic composition of separate theories. On the other hand, when dealing with dynamic composition of separate theories, the Open World Assumption adequately models the aspects of incompleteness of knowledge. A notion of open theory is introduced along with suitable operators for composing and closing theories. It is shown how these operators can be exploited to reconstruct several policies for structuring logic programs. Open theories, as well as the operators for their composition, are provided with a compositional declarative semantics defined in terms of Herbrand models, while a proof theory is given in terms of inference rules. Soundness and completeness results are stated.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. [1]
    K.A. Bowen. Meta-level programming and knowledge representation. New Generation Computing. Vol. 3, No. 4, pp. 359–383, 1985.Google Scholar
  2. [2]
    A. Brogi, E. Lamma, P. Mancarella, and P. Mello. Abductive reasoning in a multitheory framework. In Proceedings Second Congress of The Italian Association for Artificial Intelligence, Palermo (I), October 1991. Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence, Vol. 475, Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  3. [3]
    A. Brogi, E. Lamma, and P. Mello. A general framework for structuring logic programs. Technical Report 4/1, CNR — Progetto Finalizzato Sistemi Informatici e Calcolo Parallelo, Sottoprogetto 4, 1990.Google Scholar
  4. [4]
    A. Brogi, E. Lamma, and P. Mello. Inheritance and Hypothetical Reasoning in Logic Programming. In Proceedings of 9th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pages 105–110. Pitman, 1990.Google Scholar
  5. [5]
    A. Brogi, E. Lamma, and P. Mello. Composing Open Logic Theories. Technical Report 4/28, CNR — Progetto Finalizzato Sistemi Informatici e Calcolo Parallelo, Sottoprogetto 4, 1991.Google Scholar
  6. [6]
    A. Brogi, P. Mancarella, D. Pedreschi, and F. Turini. Composition Operators for Logic Theories. In J.W. Lloyd, editor, Computational Logic, Symposium Proceedings, pages 117–134. Springer-Verlag, Brussels, November 1990.Google Scholar
  7. [7]
    P. Coscia, P. Franceschi, G. Levi, G. Sardu, and L. Torre. Metalevel definition and compilation of inference engines in the epsilon logic programming environment. In R. A. Kowalski and K. A. Bowen, editors, Proc. Fifth International Conference on Logic Programming, pages 359–373. The MIT Press, 1988.Google Scholar
  8. [8]
    K. Eshgi and R.A. Kowalski. Abduction compared with negation by failure. In G. Levi and M. Martelli, editors, Proc. Sixth International Conference on Logic Programming, page 234. The MIT Press, 1989.Google Scholar
  9. [9]
    D.M. Gabbay and N. Reyle. N-prolog: an extension of prolog with hypothetical implications. Journal of Logic Programming, 4:319–355, 1984.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. [10]
    H. Gaifman and E. Shapiro. Fully abstract compositional semantics for logic programs. In Proc. sixteenth POPL, pages 134–142, 1989.Google Scholar
  11. [11]
    L. Giordano, A. Martelli, and G.F. Rossi. Local definitions with static scope rules in logic languages. In Proceedings of International Conference FGCS, 1988.Google Scholar
  12. [12]
    J. Hodas and D. Miller. Logic programming in a fragment of intuitionistic linear logic. In Proceedings of Second Workshop on Extensions of Logic Programming. Kista, January 1991.Google Scholar
  13. [13]
    E. Lamma, P. Mello, and A. Natali. The design of an abstract machine for efficient implementation of contexts in logic programming. In G. Levi and M. Martelli, editors, Proc. Sixth International Conference on Logic Programming, pages 303–317. The MIT Press, 1989.Google Scholar
  14. [14]
    P. Mancarella and D. Pedreschi. An algebra of logic programs. In R. A. Kowalski and K. A. Bowen, editors, Proc. Fifth International Conference on Logic Programming, pages 1006–1023. The MIT Press, 1988.Google Scholar
  15. [15]
    L.T. McCarthy. Clausal intuitionistic logic 1: fixed point semantics. Journal of Logic Programming, 5:1–31, 1988.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. [16]
    P. Mello and A. Natali. Programs as collections of communicating prolog units. In B. Robinet and R. Wichelm, editors, Proceedings of ESOP 86, number 243 in LNCS, pages 274–288. Springer-Verlag, 1986.Google Scholar
  17. [17]
    P. Mello, A. Natali, and C. Ruggieri. Logic programming in a software engineering perspective. In L. Lusk and R.A. Overbeek, editors, Proc. NACLP, pages 451–458. The MIT Press, 1989.Google Scholar
  18. [18]
    D. Miller. A logical analysis of modules in logic programming. Journal of Logic Programming, 6:79–108, 1989.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. [19]
    L. Monteiro and A. Porto. Contextual logic programming. In G. Levi and M. Martelli, editors, Proc. Sixth International Conference on Logic Programming, pages 284–302. The MIT Press, 1989.Google Scholar
  20. [20]
    R.C. Moore. Semantical considerations on nonmonotonic logic. Artificial Intelligence, 25:75–94, 1985.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. [21]
    R. O'Keefe. Towards an algebra for constructing logic programs. In Proceedings of IEEE Symposium on Logic Programming, pages 152–160, 1985.Google Scholar
  22. [22]
    R. Reiter. On closed world data bases. In H. Gallaire and J.Minker, editors, Logic and Data Bases. Plenum, 1978.Google Scholar
  23. [23]
    D.T. Sannella and L.A. Wallen. A calculus for the construction of modular prolog programs. In Proceedings of IEEE Symposium on Logic Programming, pages 368–378. IEEE Computer Society Press, 1987.Google Scholar
  24. [24]
    M.H. van Emden and R.A. Kowalski. The semantics of predicate logic as a programming language. Journal of the ACM, 23(4):733–742, 1976.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. [25]
    D.S. Warren. Database updates in prolog. In Proceedings of International Conference FGCS, pages 244–253, 1984.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1992

Authors and Affiliations

  • Antonio Brogi
    • 1
  • Evelina Lamma
    • 2
  • Paola Mello
    • 2
  1. 1.Dipartimento di InformaticaUniversità di PisaPisaItaly
  2. 2.DEISUniversità di BolognaBolognaItaly

Personalised recommendations