Advertisement

The semantics of disjunctive deductive databases

  • Hugo Volger
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 440)

Abstract

The problem of determining the correct declarative semantics for generalized logic programs is still open. In generalized logic programs the body of a rule may contain negated goals. Using a logical equivalence these programs may be viewed as disjunctive logic programs where the head of a rule may contain a disjunction of goals. We hope that a careful study of the declarative semantics of disjunctive logic programs will produce criteria for evaluating the different candidates for the semantics of generalized logic programs.

A conceptual analysis leads to a semantical definition of the notion of a disjunctive deductive database as a generalization of the notion of a deductive database. It will be shown that the notion of a disjunctive deductive database is equivalent to the syntactical definition of a disjunctive logic program. We have characterized disjunctive deductive databases, i. e. theories which admit in each irreducible component a minimal Herbrand model and for which this property is preserved under the addition of new facts, as disjunctive logic programs. As a special case the result yields the known characterization of deductive databases, i. e. theories which admit a minimal Herbrand model and for which this property is preserved under the addition of new facts, as logic programs. In the presence of equations term structures i. e. extended Herbrand structures replace the Herbrand structures and h-core models replace the minimal models. Actually, the results could be proved in a more general context where pseudo term structures replace the term structures. In addition, there is an intermediate case where the irreducible components coincide with the connected components. Moreover, there are characterization results for the cases where the uniformity condition is not present.

Keywords

Logic Program Irreducible Component Term Structure Canonical Model Deductive Database 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. [1]
    K. Apt, H. Blair, and A. Walker. Towards a theory of declarative knowledge. In J. Minker, editor, Foundations of Deductive Databases, pages 89–148. Morgan Kaufmann, 1988.Google Scholar
  2. [2]
    N. Bidoit and R. Hull. Minimalism, justification and non-monotonicity in deductive databases. J. of Computer and System Sciences, 38:290–325, 1989.Google Scholar
  3. [3]
    G. Bossu and P. Siegel. Saturation, nonmonotonic reasoning and the closed world assumption. Artificial Inteligence, 25:13–63, 1985.Google Scholar
  4. [4]
    G.L Cherlin and H. Volger. Convexity properties and algebraic closure operators. In Models and Sets, Proc.Logic Colloq. '83, Aachen, part 1, Lecture Notes in Math. 1103, pages 113–146. Springer Verlag, 1984.Google Scholar
  5. [5]
    K.L. Clark. Negation as failure. In H. Gallaire, J. Minker, and J.-M. Nicolas, editors, Logic and Databases, pages 293–324. Plenum Press, 1978.Google Scholar
  6. [6]
    Y. Diers. Catégories localement multiprésentables. Arch.math., 34:344–356, 1980.Google Scholar
  7. [7]
    H. Gallaire, J. Minker, and J.-M. Nicolas. Logic and databases: a deductive approach. Computing Surveys, 16:153–185, 1984.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. [8]
    M. Gelfond and V. Lifschitz. The stable model semantics for logic programming. In R.A. Kowalski and R.A. Bowen, editors, Logic programming, Proc. 5th Intern. Conf. and Symp., Seattle 1988, pages 1070–1080. MIT Press, 1988.Google Scholar
  9. [9]
    M. Gelfond, H. Przymusinska, and T. Przymusinski. On the relationship between circumscription and negation as failure. Artificial Intelligence, 38:75–94, 1989.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. [10]
    M. Hebert. Preservation and interpolation theorems through binary relations between theories. Zeitschr. f. Logik und Grundlagen d. Math., 35:169–182, 1989.Google Scholar
  11. [11]
    D.W. Kueker. Core structures for theories. Fund.Math., 89:155–171, 1975.Google Scholar
  12. [12]
    V. Lifschitz. Computing circumscription. In Proc. AAAI-86, pages 406–410, 1986.Google Scholar
  13. [13]
    J.A. Makowsky. Why horn formulas matter in computer science: initial structures and generic examples. J.C.S.S., 34:266–292, 1987.Google Scholar
  14. [14]
    A.I. Malcev. Algebraic Systems. Akademie Verlag, Berlin, 1973.Google Scholar
  15. [15]
    J. McCarthy. Circumscription — a form of nonmomotonic reasoning. Artificial Intelligence, 13:27–39, 1980.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. [16]
    J. Minker. On indefinite databases and the closed world assumption. In Proc. 6th Conf. on Automated Deduction, LNCS 138, pages 292–308. Springer Verlag, 1982.Google Scholar
  17. [17]
    J. Minker and A. Rajasekar. Procedural interpretation on non-horn logic programs. In E. Lusk and R. Overbeek, editors, Proc. 9th Intern. Conf. on Automated Deduction, pages 278–293. ?, 1988.Google Scholar
  18. [18]
    C. Pinter. A note on the decomposition of theories with respect to amalgamation, convexity and related properties. Notre Dame J.Formal Logic, 19:115–118, 1978.Google Scholar
  19. [19]
    T.C. Przymusinski. Perfect model semantics. In R.A. Kowalski and R.A. Bowen, editors, Logic programming, proc. 5th Intern. Conf. and Symp., Seattle 1988, pages 1081–1096. MIT Press, 1988.Google Scholar
  20. [20]
    T.C. Przymusinski. On the declarative and procedural semantics of logic programs. J. of Automated Reasoning, 5:167–205, 1989.Google Scholar
  21. [21]
    H. Przymusinsky and T.C. Przymusinski. Weakly perfect model semantics for logic programs. In R.A. Kowalski and R.A. Bowen, editors, Logic programming, proc. 5th Intern. Conf. and Symp., Seattle 1988, pages 1106–1120. MIT Press, 1988.Google Scholar
  22. [22]
    J. Rajasekar, J. Lobo, and J. Minker. Weak gweneralized closed world assumption. J. of Automated reasoning, 5:293–307, 1989.Google Scholar
  23. [23]
    R. Reiter. On closed world databases. In H. Gallaire and J. Minker, editors, Logic and Databases, pages 55–76. Plenum, 1978.Google Scholar
  24. [24]
    K.A. Ross and R.W. Topor. Inferring negative information from disjunctive databases. J. of Automated reasoning, 4:397–424, 1988.Google Scholar
  25. [25]
    H. Volger. Preservation theorems for limits of structures and global sections of sheaves of structures. Math.Z., 166:27–53, 1979.Google Scholar
  26. [26]
    H. Volger. Model theory of deductive databases. In CSL '87 1st Workshop on Comp.Sci.Logic, LNCS 329, pages 322–334. Springer Verlag, 1988.Google Scholar
  27. [27]
    H. Volger. The semantics of disjunctive deductive databases. Technical report, MIP-8931 Univ. Passau, 1989.Google Scholar
  28. [28]
    A. Yahya and L.J. Henschen. Deduction in non-horn databases. J. of Automated Reasoning, 1:141–160, 1985.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1990

Authors and Affiliations

  • Hugo Volger
    • 1
  1. 1.FMI, Univ. PassauPassau

Personalised recommendations