Advertisement

Partial evidential stable models for disjunctive deductive databases

  • Dietmar Seipel
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1471)

Abstract

In this paper we consider the basic semantics of stable and partial stable models for disjunctive deductive databases (with default negation), cf. [9,16]. It is well-known that there are disjunctive deductive databases where no stable or partial stable models exist, and these databases are called inconsistent w.r.t. the basic semantics.

We define a consistent variant of each class of models, which we call evidential stable and partial evidential stable models. It is shown that if a database is already consistent w.r.t. the basic semantics, then the class of evidential models coincides with the basic class of models. Otherwise, the set of evidential models is a subset of the set of minimal models of the database. This subset is non-empty, if the database is logically consistent. It is determined according to a suitable preference relation, whose underlying idea is to minimize the amount of reasoning by contradiction.

The technical ingredients for the construction of the new classes of models are two transformations of disjunctive deductive databases. First, the evidential transformation is used to realize the preference relation, and to define evidential stable models. Secondly, based on the tu-transformation the result is lifted to the three-valued case, that is, partial evidential stable models are defined.

Keywords

disjunctive logic programming non-monotonic reasoning stable and partial stable models handling inconsistency program transformations 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    C. Baral, J. Lobo, J. Minker: WF3: A Semantics for Negation in Normal Disjunctive Logic Programs, Proc. Intl. Symposium on Methodologies for Intelligent Systems (ISMIS'91), Springer LNAI 542, 1991, pp. 490–499.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    S. Brass, J. Dix: A Disjunctive Semantics Based upon Partial and Bottom-Up Evaluation, Proc. Intl. Conference on Logic Programming (ICLP'95), MIT Press, 1995, pp. 199–213.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    S. Brass, J. Dix: Characterizations of the Disjunctive Stable Semantics by Partial Evaluation, Proc. Third Intl. Conf. on Logic Programming an Non-Monotonic Reasoning (LPNMR'95), Springer LNAI 928, 1995, pp. 85–98, and: Journal of Logic Programming, vol. 32(3), 1997, pp. 207–228.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    C. V. Damásio, L.M. Pereira: Abduction over 3-valued Extended Logic Programs, Proc. Third Intl. Conf. on Logic Programming an Non-Monotonic Reasoning (LPNMR'95), Springer LNAI 928, 1995, pp. 29–42.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    T. Eiter, N. Leone, D. Sacca: The Expressive Power of Partial Models for Disjunctive Deductive Databases, Proc. Intl. Workshop of Logic in Databases (LID'96), Springer LNCS 1154, 1996, pp. 245–264.MATHGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    T. Eiter, N. Leone, D. Sacca: On the Partial Semantics for Disjunctive Deductive Databases, Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence, to appear.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    J.A. Fernández, J. Lobo, J. Minker, V.S. Subrahmanian: Disjunctive LP + Integrity Constrains = Stable Model Semantics, Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence, vol. 8 (3–4), 1993, pp. 449–474.MATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    M. Fitting: Bilattices and the Semantics of Logic Programs, Journal of Logic Programming, vol. 11, 1991, pp. 91–116.MATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    M. Gelfond, V. Lifschitz: The Stable Model Semantics for Logic Programming, Proc. Fifth Intl. Conference and Symposium on Logic Programming (ICSLP'88), MIT Press, 1988, pp. 1070–1080.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    M. Gelfond, V. Lifschitz: Classical Negation in Logic Programs and Disjunctive Databases, New Generation Computing, vol. 9, 1991, pp. 365–385.MATHGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    K. Inoue, C. Sakama: A Fixpoint Characterization of Abductive Logic Programs, Journal of Logic Programming, vol. 27(2), 1996, pp. 107–136.MATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    N. Leone, R. Rullo, F. Scarcello: Stable Model Checking for Disjunctive Logic Programs, Proc. Intl. Workshop of Logic in Databases (LID'96), Springer LNCS 1154, 1996, pp. 265–278.MATHGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    J. W. Lloyd: Foundations of Logic Programming, second edition, Springer, 1987.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    J. Lobo, J. Minker, A. Rajasekar: Foundations of Disjunctive Logic Programming, MIT Press, 1992.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    I. NiemelÄ, P. Simons: Efficient Implementation of the Well-founded and Stable Model Semantics, Proc. Joint Intl. Conference and Symposium on Logic Programming (JICSLP'96), MIT Press, 1996, pp. 289–303.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    T.C. Przymusinski: Stable Semantics for Disjunctive Programs, New Generation Computing, vol. 9, 1991, pp. 401–424.MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    T.C. Przymusinski: Static Semantics for Normal and Disjunctive Logic Programs, Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence, vol. 14, 1995, pp. 323–357.MATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    D. Seipel, J. Minker, C. Ruiz: Model Generation and State Generation for Disjunctive Logic Programs, Journal of Logic Programming, vol. 32(1), 1997, pp. 48–69.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    D. Seipel, J. Minker, C. Ruiz: A Characterization of Partial Stable Models for Disjunctive Deductive Databases, Proc. Intl. Logic Programming Symposium (ILPS'97), MIT Press, 1997, pp. 245–259.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    D. Seipel:DisLog — A Disjunctive Deductive Database Prototype, Proc. Twelfth Workshop on Logic Programming (WLP'97), 1997, pp. 136–143. DisLog is available on the WWW at ”http://www-info1.informatik.uni-wuerzburg.de/databases/DisLog”.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    A. Van Gelder, K.A. Ross, J.S. Schlipf:, Unfounded Sets and Well-Founded Semantics for General Logic Programs, Proc. Seventh ACM Symposium on Principles of Database Systems (PODS'88), 1988, pp. 221–230.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    C. Witteveen, G. Brewka: Skeptical Reason Maintenance and Belief Revision, Journal of Artificial Intelligence, vol. 61, 1993, pp. 1–36.MATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    C. Witteveen, W. van der Hoek: A General Framework for Revising Nonmonotonic Theories, Proc. Fourth Intl. Conf. on Logic Programming an Non-Monotonic Reasoning (LPNMR'97), Springer LNAI 1265, 1997, pp. 258–272.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    J.H. You, L.Y. Yuan: Three-Valued Formalisms of Logic Programming: Is It Needed ?, Proc. Ninth ACM Symposium on Principles of Database Systems (PODS'90), 1990, pp. 172–182.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    J.H. You, L. Y. Yuan: On the Equivalence of Semantics for Normal Logic Programs, Journal of Logic Programming, vol. 22(3), 1995, pp. 211–222.MATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1998

Authors and Affiliations

  • Dietmar Seipel
    • 1
  1. 1.University of WürzburgWürzburgGermany

Personalised recommendations