Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A New Semantics for Logic Programs

  • Chapter
Dynamics and Management of Reasoning Processes

Part of the book series: Handbook of Defeasible Reasoning and Uncertainty Management Systems ((HAND,volume 6))

  • 215 Accesses

Abstract

In this paper we propose a novel semantics for logic programs in the situation calculus. One of the advantages of our proposal is that like Clark’s completion semantics, it is explicitly formulated in classical logic. For this reason, it is suitable for proving properties of logic programs such as the correctness of various program transformation operators.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Bibliography

  1. K. L. Clark. Negation as failure. In H. Gallaire and J. Minker, editors, Logics and Databases, pages 293–322. Plenum Press, New York, 1978.

    Google Scholar 

  2. M. Fitting. A Kripke-Kleene semantics for logic programs. Journal of Logic Programming, 2 (4): 295–312, 1985.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. M. Gelfond and V. Lifschitz. The stable model semantics for logic programming. In Proc. Fifth International Conference and Symposium on Logic Programming, pages 1070–1080, 1988.

    Google Scholar 

  4. C. C. Green. Application of theorem proving to problem solving. In Proceedings of the International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI-69), pages 219–239, 1969.

    Google Scholar 

  5. A. R. Haas. The case for domain-specific frame axioms. In F. M. Brown, editor, The Frame Problem in Artificial Intelligence. Proceedings of the 1987 Workshop on Reasoning about Action, pages 343–348, San Jose, CA, 1987. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Kunen, 1987] K. Kunen. Negation in logic programming. Journal of Logic Programming,4(4):289308,1987.

    Google Scholar 

  7. V. Lifschitz. Pointwise circumscription. In Proceedings of the Fifth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI-86), pages 406–410, Philadelphia, PA, 1986.

    Google Scholar 

  8. V. Lifschitz. Formal theories of action. In Proceedings of the Tenth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI-87), pages 966–972, 1987.

    Google Scholar 

  9. F. Lin. Applications of the situation calculus to formalizing control and strategic information: the prolog cut operator. Artificial Intelligence, 103: 273–294, 1998.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. F. Lin and R. Reiter. State constraints revisited. Journal of Logic and Computation, Special Issue on Actions and Processes, 4 (5): 655–678, 1994.

    Google Scholar 

  11. F. Lin and R. Reiter. Rules as actions: A situation calculus semantics for logic programs. J. of Logic Programming, 31 (1–3): 299–330, 1997.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. F. Lin and R. Reiter. Forget it! In R. Greiner and D. Subramanian, editors, Working Notes of AAAI Fall Symposium on Relevance, pages 154–159. The American Association for Artificial Intelligence, Menlo Park, CA, November 1994.

    Google Scholar 

  13. F. Lin and Y. Shoham. Provably correct theories of action. Journal of the ACM, 42 (2): 293–320, 1995.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. J. W. Lloyd. Foundations of Logic Programming. Springer-Verlag, 2nd edition, 1987.

    Google Scholar 

  15. J. McCarthy. Situations, actions and causal laws. In M. Minsky, editor, Semantic Information Processing, pages 410–417. MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass., 1968.

    Google Scholar 

  16. J. McCarthy. Applications of circumscription to formalizing commonsense knowledge. Artificial Intelligence, 28: 89–118, 1986.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. J. McCarthy and P. Hayes. Some philosophical problems from the standpoint of artificial intelligence. In B. Meltzer and D. Michie, editors, Machine Intelligence 4, pages 463–502. Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh, 1969.

    Google Scholar 

  18. E. P. Pednault. Synthesizing plans that contain actions with context-dependent effects. Computational Intelligence, 4: 356–372, 1988.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Pednault, 1989] E. P. Pednault. ADL: Exploring the middle ground between STRIPS and the situation calculus. In Proceedings of the First International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR’89),pages 324–332. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, Inc., 1989.

    Google Scholar 

  20. T. C. Przymusinski. On the declarative semantics of deductive databases and logic programs. In J. Minker, editor, Foundations of Deductive Databases and Logic Programming, pages 193–216. Morgan Kaufmann, Los Altos, CA, 1988.

    Google Scholar 

  21. R. Reiter. The frame problem in the situation calculus: a simple solution (sometimes) and a completeness result for goal regression. In V. Lifschitz, editor, Artificial Intelligence and Mathematical Theory of Computation: Papers in Honor of John McCarthy, pages 418–420. Academic Press, San Diego, CA, 1991.

    Google Scholar 

  22. R. Reiter. Proving properties of states in the situation calculus. Artificial Intelligence, 64: 337–351, 1993.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Y. Sagiv. Optimizing datalog programs. In J. Minker, editor, Foundations of Deductive Databases and Logic Programming, pages 659–698. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, San Mateo, CA., 1988.

    Google Scholar 

  24. L. K. Schubert. Monotonic solution to the frame problem in the situation calculus: an efficient method for worlds with fully specified actions. In H. Kyberg, R. Loui, and G. Carlson, editors, Knowledge Representation and Defeasible Reasoning, pages 23–67. Kluwer Academic Press, Boston, MA, 1990.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  25. H. Seki. Unfold/fold transformation of general logic programs for the well-founded semantics. The Journal of Logic Programming, 15: 5–23, 1993.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Y. Shoham. Chronological ignorance: experiments in nonmonotonic temporal reasoning. Artificial Intelligence, 36: 279–331, 1988.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. H. Tamaki and T. Sato. Unfold/fold transformation of logic programs. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Logic Programming, pages 127–138, 1984.

    Google Scholar 

  28. A. Van Gelder. Negation as failure using tight derivations for general logic programs. Journal of Logic Programming, 6 (2): 109–133, 1989.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Van Gelder et al.,1988] A. Van Gelder, K. A. Ross, and J. S. Schlipf. Unfounded sets and well-founded semantics for general logic programs. In Pmc. Seventh ACM Symposium on Principles of Database Systems,pages 221–230, 1988.

    Google Scholar 

  30. R. Waldinger. Achieving several goals simultaneously. In E. Elcock and D. Michie, editors, Machine Intelligence, pages 94–136. Ellis Horwood, Edinburgh, Scotland, 1977.

    Google Scholar 

  31. M. G. Wallace. Tight, consistent, and computable completions for unrestricted logic programs. Journal of Logic Programming, 15: 243–273, 1993.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, Hong Kong

    Fangzhen Lin

  2. University of Toronto, Canada

    Ray Reiter

Authors
  1. Fangzhen Lin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ray Reiter
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Utrecht University, The Netherlands

    John-Jules Ch. Meyer

  2. Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, The Netherlands

    Jan Treur

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

Âİ 2001 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Lin, F., Reiter, R. (2001). A New Semantics for Logic Programs. In: Meyer, JJ.C., Treur, J. (eds) Dynamics and Management of Reasoning Processes. Handbook of Defeasible Reasoning and Uncertainty Management Systems, vol 6. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-1743-4_12

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-1743-4_12

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht

  • Print ISBN: 978-90-481-5903-1

  • Online ISBN: 978-94-017-1743-4

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation