Criticism of Logical Approaches

  • Takaaki Yagiu
Part of the Computer Graphics: Systems and Applications book series (COMPUTER GRAPH.)


The relationship between logic and computer sciences and applications is deep and broad. At the most basic end of the spectrum, we have the functional description of a circuit as a combination of AND, OR and NOT gates, and the boolean data type in most programming languages. The generationof sentences by repeated applications of production rules is equivalent to theenumeration of theorems of the form S → (sequence of terminal symbols). A more specialized case is the formulation of the functional and multivalued dependencies of a relational database in terms of implications between the propositional variables, each corresponding to an attribute domain of a relation ([Fag], [Sag]). While these instances are all within the realm of propositional logic, the use of first order predicate logic (FOPL) has become prevalent in recent years. This trend is probably explained by the following reasons:
  • the far richer contents of FOPL than those of propositional logic,

  • the high degree of maturity and refinement it has attained as a theoretical discipline,

  • the ease of the intuitive understanding of an interpretation for such a purely formal system of symbols, without impairing the rigor of the system, and

  • that it has reached a sort of natural boundary as a framework for describing information systems in view of the precise and profound results concerning decidability and computability.


Logic Program Logic Programming Semantic Network Logical Approach Integrity Constraint 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. [Abi]
    Abiteboul, S., Hull, R., IFO: A Formal Semantic Database Model. ACM TODS, Vol. 12, No.4, Dec. 1987MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. [Arb]
    Arbab, F., Wing, J.M.: Geometric Reasoning: A New Paradigm for Processing Geometric Information. In: Yoshikawa, H., Warman, E.A. (eds.): Design Theory for CAD. North-Holland, 1987Google Scholar
  3. [Bra(1)]
    Brachman, R.J.: On the Epistemological Status of Semantic Networks. In: [Fin]Google Scholar
  4. [Bra(2)]
    Brachman, R.J.: An Overview of the KL-ONE Knowledge Representation System. Cognitive Science 9, 1985Google Scholar
  5. [Bro]
    Brodie, M.L. et al. (eds.): On Conceptual Modelling. Springer, 1984MATHGoogle Scholar
  6. [Cla]
    Clark, K.L.: Negation as Failure. In: [Gal(1)]Google Scholar
  7. [Cod]
    Codd, E.F.: Extending the Database Relational Model to Capture More Meaning. ACM TODS, Vol. 4, No.4, Dec. 1979CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. [Fag]
    Fagin, It.: Functional Dependencies in a Relational Database and Propositional Logic. IBM J. It & D, Nov. 1977Google Scholar
  9. [Fil]
    Fillmore, C.: The Case for Case. In: Bach, E., Harms, It. (eds.): Universals in Linguistic Theory. Holt, 1968Google Scholar
  10. [Fin]
    Findler, N.V. (ed.): Associative Networks: Representation and Use of Knowledge by Computer. Academic Press, 1979MATHGoogle Scholar
  11. [Gal(1)]
    Gallaire, H., Minker, J. (eds.): Logic and Databases. Plenum, 1978Google Scholar
  12. [Gal(2)]
    Gallaire, H. et al, (eds.): Logic and Databases: A Deductive Approach. ACM Computing Surveys, Vol. 16, No.2, June 1984Google Scholar
  13. [Gri]
    Gries, D.: The Science of Programming. Springer, 1981MATHGoogle Scholar
  14. [Hei]
    Heiler, S. et al.: An Object-oriented Approach to Data Management: Why Design Databases Need It. Proc. 24th Design Automation Conf., 1987Google Scholar
  15. [Hul]
    Hull, R., King, It.: Semantic Database Modeling: Survey, Applications and Research Issues. ACM Computing Surveys, Vol. 19, No.3, Sep. 1987CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. [Isr]
    Israrel, D.J., Brachman, It.J.: Some Remarks on the Semantics of Representation Languages. In: [Bro]Google Scholar
  17. [Kow(1)]
    Kowalski, R.A.: Predicate Logic as a Programming Language. Information Processing 74, North-Holland, 1974Google Scholar
  18. [Kow(2)]
    Kowalski, It.A.: Logic for Data Description. In: [Gal(1)]Google Scholar
  19. [Lev]
    Levesque, H.J., Brachman, R.J.: A. Fundamental Tradeoff in Knowledge Representation and Reasoning. Proc. CSCSI-84, 1984Google Scholar
  20. [Llo]
    Lloyd, J.W.: Foundations of Logic Programming. 2nd ed., Springer, 1987MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. [Mai]
    Maida, A.S., Shapiro, S.C.: Intensional Concepts in Propositional Semantic Networks. Cognitive Science 6 (4), 1982Google Scholar
  22. [Mal]
    Mallgren, W.R.: Formal Specification of Interactive Graphics Programming Languages. MIT Press, 1982Google Scholar
  23. [Man]
    Manna, Z.: Mathematical Theory of Computation. McGraw-Hill, 1974MATHGoogle Scholar
  24. [McC(1)]
    McCarthy, J.: First Order Theories of Individual Concepts and Propositions. In: Hayes, J.E. et al, (eds.): Machine Intelligence 9.1979Google Scholar
  25. [McC(2)]
    McCarthy, J.: Circumscription — A Form of Non-Monotonic Reasoning. Artificial Intelligence 13, 1980Google Scholar
  26. [Myl]
    Mylopoulos, J., Levesque, H.J.: An Overview of Knowledge Representation. In: [Bro]Google Scholar
  27. [Qui]
    Quillian, M.R.: Semantic Memory. In: Minsky, M. (ed.): Semantic Information Processing. MIT Press, 1968Google Scholar
  28. [Rei(1)]
    Reiter, R.: On Closed World Databases. In: [Gal(l)]Google Scholar
  29. [Rei(2)]
    Reiter, R.: A logic for Default Reasoning. Artificial Intelligence 13, 1980Google Scholar
  30. [Rei(3)]
    Reiter, R.: Towards a Logical Reconstruction of Relational Database Theory. In: [Bro]Google Scholar
  31. [Rum]
    Rumelhart, D.E. et al.: A Process Model for Long-term Memory. In: Tulving, E., Donaldson, W. (eds.): Organization of Memory. Academic Press, 1972Google Scholar
  32. [Sag]
    Sagiv, Y. et al.: An Equivalence Between Relational Database Dependencies and a Fragment of Propositional Logic. JACM, Vol. 28, No.3, July 1981CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. [Scha]
    Schank, R.C.: Conceptual Information Processing. North-Holland, 1975MATHGoogle Scholar
  34. [Schu(1)]
    Schubert, L.K.: Extending the Expressive Power of Semantic Networks. Artificial Intelligence, Vol. 7, No.2, Summer 1976CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. [Schu(2)]
    Schubert, L.K. et al.: The Structure and Organization of a Semantic Net for Comprehension and Inference. In: [Fin]Google Scholar
  36. [Schw(1)]
    Schwartz, L.: Theorie des Distributions. Herman, 1950MATHGoogle Scholar
  37. [Schw(1)]
    Schwartz, L.: Methodes Mathematiques pour les Sciences Physiques. Hermann, 1961MATHGoogle Scholar
  38. [Sha(1)]
    Shapiro, S.C.: A Net Structure for Semantic Information Storage, Deduction and Retrieval. Proc. 2nd Int’l Conf. on AI, 1971Google Scholar
  39. [Sha(2)]
    Shapiro, S.C.: The SNePs Semantic Network Processing System. In: [Fin]Google Scholar
  40. [Sim]
    Simmons, R.F.: Semantic Networks: Their Computation and Use for Understanding English Sentences. In: Schank, R.C., Colby, K.M. (eds.): Computer Models of Thought and Language, Freeman, 1973Google Scholar
  41. [Sto]
    Stonebraker, M.: Adding Semantic Knowledge to a Relational Database System. In: [Bro]Google Scholar
  42. [Tho]
    Thomason, R. (ed.): Formal Philosophy: Selected Papers of Richard Montague. Yale University Press, 1974Google Scholar
  43. [Web]
    Webster’s Third New International Dictionary. G & C Merriam Company, 1969Google Scholar
  44. [Woo]
    Woods, W.A.: What’s in a Link: Foundations for Semantic Networks. In: Bobrow, D.G., Collins, A.M. (eds.): Representation and Understanding: Studiesin Cognitive Science. Academic Press, 1975Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1991

Authors and Affiliations

  • Takaaki Yagiu
    • 1
  1. 1.Nihon Unisys, Ltd.Minato-ku, Tokyo 107Japan

Personalised recommendations