Generalizing updates: From models to programs

  • JoÃo Alexandre Leite
  • Luís Moniz Pereira
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1471)


Recently the field of theory update has seen some improvement, in what concerns model updating, by allowing updates to be specified by so-called revision programs. The updating of theory models is governed by their update rules and also by inertia applied to those literals not directly affected by the update program. Though this is important, it remains necessary to tackle as well the updating of programs specifying theories. Some results have been obtained on the issue of updating a logic program which encodes a set of models, to obtain a new program whose models are the desired updates of the initial models. But here the program only plays the rÔle of a means to encode the models.

A logic program encodes much more than a set of models: it encodes knowledge in the form of the relationships between the elements of those models. In this paper we advocate that the principle of inertia is advantageously applied to the rules of the initial program rather than to the individual literals in a model. Indeed, we show how this concept of program update generalizes model or interpretation updates. Furthermore, it allows us to conceive what it is to update one program by another, a crucial notion for opening up a whole new range of applications concerning the evolution of knowledge bases. We will consider the updating of normal programs as well as these extended with explicit negation, under the stable semantics.




Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. [AP96]
    J. J. Alferes, L. M. Pereira. Reasoning with logic programming, LNAI 1111, Berlin, Springer-Verlag, 1996.Google Scholar
  2. [AP97]
    J. J. Alferes, L. M. Pereira. Update-programs can update programs. In J. Dix, L. M. Pereira and T. Przymusinski, editors, Selected papers from the ICLP'96 ws NMELP'96, vol. 1216 of LNAI, pages 110–131. Springer-Verlag, 1997.Google Scholar
  3. [APP96]
    J. J. Alferes, L. M. Pereira and T. Przymusinski. Strong and Explicit Negation in Nonmonotonic Reasoning and Logic Programming. In J. J. Alferes, L. M. Pereira and E. Orlowska, editors, JELIA '96, volume 1126 of LNAI, pages 143–163. Springer-Verlag, 1996.Google Scholar
  4. [BD95]
    S. Brass and J. Dix. Disjunctive Semantics based upon Partial and Bottom-Up Evaluation. In Leon Sterling, editor, Procs. of the 12th Int. Conf. on Logic Programming, Tokyo, pag. 85–98, Berlin, June 1995. Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  5. [DP96]
    C. V. Damásio and L. M. Pereira. Default negated conclusions: why not? In R. Dyckhoff, H. Herre and P. Schroeder-Heister, editors, Procs. of ELP'96, volume 1050 of LNAI, pages 103–118. Springer-Verlag, 1996.Google Scholar
  6. [GL90]
    M. Gelfond and V. Lifschitz. Logic Programs with classical negation. In Warren and Szeredi, editors, 7th Int. Conf. on LP, pages 579–597. MIT Press, 1990.Google Scholar
  7. [KM91]
    H. Katsuno and A. Mendelzon. On the difference between updating a knowledge base and revising it. In James Allen, Richard Fikes and Erik Sandewall, editors, Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning: Proc. of the Second Int'l Conf. (KR91), pages 230–237, Morgan Kaufmann 1991.Google Scholar
  8. [KW85]
    A. Keller and M. Winslett Wilkins. On the use of an extended relational model to handle changing incomplete information. IEEE Trans. on Software Engineering, SE-11:7, pages 620–633, 1985.Google Scholar
  9. [Lei97]
    JoÃo A. Leite. Logic Program Updates. MSc dissertation, Universidade Nova de Lisboa, 1997.Google Scholar
  10. [LW92]
    V. Lifschitz and T. Woo. Answer sets in general nonmonotonic reasoning (preliminary report). In B. Nebel, C. Rich and W. Swartout, editors, Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning, Proc. of the Third Int'l Conf (KR92), pages 603–614. Morgan-Kaufmann, 1992Google Scholar
  11. [MT94]
    V. Marek and M. Truszczynski. 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
  12. [Principia]
    Isaaco Newtono. Philosophi∄ Naturalis Principia Mathematica. Editio tertia aucta & emendata. Apud Guil & Joh. Innys, RegiÆ Societatis typographos. Londini, MDCCXXVI. Original quotation: “Corpus omne perseverare in statu suo quiescendi vel movendi uniformiter in directum, nisi quatenus illud a viribus impressis cogitur statum suum mutare”.Google Scholar
  13. [PA92]
    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
  14. [PT95]
    T. Przymusinski and H. Turner. Update by means of inference rules. In V. Marek, A. Nerode, and M. Truszczynski, editors, LPNMR'95, volume 928 of LNAI, pages 156–174. Springer-Verlag, 1995.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1998

Authors and Affiliations

  • JoÃo Alexandre Leite
    • 1
  • Luís Moniz Pereira
    • 1
  1. 1.Centro de InteligÊncia Artificial (CENTRIA) Departamento de InformáticaUniversidade Nova de LisboaMonte da CaparicaPortugal

Personalised recommendations