Update-programms can update programs

  • José Júlio Alferes
  • Luís Moniz Pereira
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1216)


In the recent literature the issue of program change via updating rules (also known as revision rules) has been reduced to the issue of obtaining a new set of models, by means of the update rules, from each of the models of an initial program. Any program whose models are exactly the new set of models will count as an update of the original program. Following the classical approaches to theory updating, it is of course essential to start by specifying precisely how a program's models are to change, before even attempting to specify program change. But to stop there is to go only halfway.

Another limitation of existing approaches to logic program updating concerns their not dealing with 3-valuedness, i.e. with partial models. The limitation is twofold: on the one hand, only programs under 2-valued semantics are approachable; on the other, when there are contradictory update rules, in lieu of leaving undefined the effects of the contradictory rules and keeping those of the others, no update is possible at all. In this paper, we generalize the notion of justified update to partial (or 3-valued) interpretations and expound a correct transformation on normal programs which, from an initial program, produces another program whose models enact the required change in the initial program's models, as specified by the update rules. Forthwith, we generalize our approach to logic programs as well as update programs extended with explicit negation.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    J. J. Alferes, C. V. Damásio, and L. M. Pereira. A logic programming system for non-monotonic reasoning. Journal of Automated Reasoning, 14:93–147, 1995.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    J. J. Alferes and L. M. Pereira. Contradiction: when avoidance equal removal. In R. Dyckhoff, editor, 4th ELF, volume 798 of LNAI. Springer-Verlag, 1994.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    C. Baral. Rule-based updates on simple knowledge bases. In AAAI'94, pages 136–141, 1994.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    C. Baral and M. Gelfond. Logic programming and knowledge representation. J. Logic Programming, 19/20:73–148, 1994.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    C. V. Damásio and L. M. Pereira. Default negated conclusions: why not? In R. Dyckhoff, H. Herre, and P. Schroeder-Heister, editors, ELP'96. Springer-Verlag, 1996.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    H. Decker. Drawing updates from derivations. In Int. Conf on Database Theory, volume 460 of LNCS, 1990.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    A. Van Gelder, K. A. Ross, and J. S. Schlipf. The well-founded semantics for general logic programs. Journal of the ACM, 38(3):620–650, 1991.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    L. Giordano and A. Martelli. Generalized stable models, truth maintenance and conflit resolution. In D. Warren and P. Szeredi, editors, 7th ICLP, pages 427–441. MIT Press, 1990.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    A. Guessoum and J. W. Lloyd. Updating knowledge bases. New Generation Computing, 8(1):71–89, 1990.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    A. Guessoum and J. W. Lloyd. Updating knowledge bases II. New Generation Computing, 10(1):73–100, 1991.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    H. Katsuno and A. Mendelzon. On the difference between updating a knowledge base and revising it. In J. Allen, R. Fikes, and E. Sandewall, editors, KR'91, pages 387–394. Morgan-Kaufmann, 1991.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    V. Marek and M. Truszczyński. Revision specifications by means of programs. In C. MacNish, D. Pearce, and L. M. Pereira, editors, JELIA '94, volume 838 of LNAI, pages 122–136. Springer-Verlag, 1994.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    V. Marek and M. Truszczyński. Revision programming, database updates and integrity constraints. In ICDT'95, pages 368–382. Springer-Verlag, 1995.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    L. M. Pereira and J. J. Alferes. Well founded semantics for logic programs with explicit negation. In B. Neumann, editor, European Conf. on AI, pages 102–106. John Wiley & Sons, 1992.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    L. M. Pereira, J. N. Aparício, and J. J. Alferes. Non-monotonic reasoning with logic programming. Journal of Logic Programming, 17(2, 3 & 4):227–263, 1993.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    T. Przymusinski and H. Turner. Update by means of inference rules. In V. Marek, A. Nerode, and M. Truszczyński, editors, LPNMR'95, volume 928 of LNAI, pages 156–174. Springer-Verlag, 1995.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    M. Winslett. Reasoning about action using a possible models approach. In AAAI'88, pages 89–93, 1988.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    C. Witteveen and W. Hoek. Revision by communication. In V. Marek, A. Nerode, and M. Truszczyński, editors, LPNMR'95, volume 928 of LNAI, pages 189–202. Springer-Verlag, 1995.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    C. Witteveen, W. Hoek, and H. Nivelle. Revision of non-monotonic theories: some postulates and an application to logic programming. In C. MacNish, D. Pearce, and L. M. Pereira, editors, JELIA '94, volume 838 of LNAI, pages 137–151. Springer-Verlag, 1994.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1997

Authors and Affiliations

  • José Júlio Alferes
    • 1
  • Luís Moniz Pereira
    • 2
  1. 1.DM, U. Évora and CITIAMonte da CaparicaPortugal
  2. 2.DCS and CITIAMonte da CaparicaPortugal

Personalised recommendations