Results 1  10
of
72
Complexity and Expressive Power of Logic Programming
, 1997
"... This paper surveys various complexity results on different forms of logic programming. The main focus is on decidable forms of logic programming, in particular, propositional logic programming and datalog, but we also mention general logic programming with function symbols. Next to classical results ..."
Abstract

Cited by 281 (57 self)
 Add to MetaCart
This paper surveys various complexity results on different forms of logic programming. The main focus is on decidable forms of logic programming, in particular, propositional logic programming and datalog, but we also mention general logic programming with function symbols. Next to classical results on plain logic programming (pure Horn clause programs), more recent results on various important extensions of logic programming are surveyed. These include logic programming with different forms of negation, disjunctive logic programming, logic programming with equality, and constraint logic programming. The complexity of the unification problem is also addressed.
Logic and databases: a deductive approach
 ACM Computing Surveys
, 1984
"... The purpose of this paper is to show that logic provides a convenient formalism for studying classical database problems. There are two main parts to the paper, devoted respectively to conventional databases and deductive databases. In the first part, we focus on query languages, integrity modeling ..."
Abstract

Cited by 143 (2 self)
 Add to MetaCart
The purpose of this paper is to show that logic provides a convenient formalism for studying classical database problems. There are two main parts to the paper, devoted respectively to conventional databases and deductive databases. In the first part, we focus on query languages, integrity modeling and maintenance, query optimization, and data
Interpreting Bayesian Logic Programs
 PROCEEDINGS OF THE WORKINPROGRESS TRACK AT THE 10TH INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON INDUCTIVE LOGIC PROGRAMMING
, 2001
"... Various proposals for combining first order logic with Bayesian nets exist. We introduce the formalism of Bayesian logic programs, which is basically a simplification and reformulation of Ngo and Haddawys probabilistic logic programs. However, Bayesian logic programs are sufficiently powerful to ..."
Abstract

Cited by 109 (7 self)
 Add to MetaCart
Various proposals for combining first order logic with Bayesian nets exist. We introduce the formalism of Bayesian logic programs, which is basically a simplification and reformulation of Ngo and Haddawys probabilistic logic programs. However, Bayesian logic programs are sufficiently powerful to represent essentially the same knowledge in a more elegant manner. The elegance is illustrated by the fact that they can represent both Bayesian nets and definite clause programs (as in "pure" Prolog) and that their kernel in Prolog is actually an adaptation of an usual Prolog metainterpreter.
A Prolog Technology Theorem Prover: Implementation by an Extended Prolog Compiler
 Journal of Automated Reasoning
, 1987
"... A Prolog technology theorem prover (PTTP) is an extension of Prolog that is complete for the full firstorder predicate calculus. It differs from Prolog in its use of unification with the occurs check for soundness, the modelelimination reduction rule that is added to Prolog inferences to make the ..."
Abstract

Cited by 100 (2 self)
 Add to MetaCart
A Prolog technology theorem prover (PTTP) is an extension of Prolog that is complete for the full firstorder predicate calculus. It differs from Prolog in its use of unification with the occurs check for soundness, the modelelimination reduction rule that is added to Prolog inferences to make the inference system complete, and depthfirst iterativedeepening search instead of unbounded depthfirst search to make the search strategy complete. A Prolog technology theorem prover has been implemented by an extended PrologtoLISP compiler that supports these additional features. It is capable of proving theorems in the full firstorder predicate calculus at a rate of thousands of inferences per second. 1 This is a revised and expanded version of a paper presented at the 8th International Conference on Automated Deduction, Oxford, England, July 1986, and is to appear in Journal of Automated Reasoning. This research was supported by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency under Co...
Controlled Integrations of the Cut Rule into Connection Tableau Calculi
"... In this paper techniques are developed and compared which increase the inferential power of tableau systems for classical firstorder logic. The mechanisms are formulated in the framework of connection tableaux, which is an amalgamation of the connection method and the tableau calculus, and a genera ..."
Abstract

Cited by 61 (3 self)
 Add to MetaCart
In this paper techniques are developed and compared which increase the inferential power of tableau systems for classical firstorder logic. The mechanisms are formulated in the framework of connection tableaux, which is an amalgamation of the connection method and the tableau calculus, and a generalization of model elimination. Since connection tableau calculi are among the weakest proof systems with respect to proof compactness, and the (backward) cut rule is not suitable for the firstorder case, we study alternative methods for shortening proofs. The techniques we investigate are the folding up and the folding down operation. Folding up represents an efficient way of supporting the basic calculus, which is topdown oriented, with lemmata derived in a bottomup manner. It is shown that both techniques can also be viewed as controlled integrations of the cut rule. In order to remedy the additional redundancy imported into tableau proof procedures by the new inference rules, we develop and apply an extension of the regularity condition on tableaux and the mechanism of antilemmata which realizes a subsumption concept on tableaux. Using the framework of the theorem prover SETHEO, we have implemented three new proof procedures which overcome the deductive weakness of cutfree tableau systems. Experimental results demonstrate the superiority of the systems with folding up over the cutfree variant and the one with folding down.
Logic and Databases: a 20 Year Retrospective
, 1996
"... . At a workshop held in Toulouse, France in 1977, Gallaire, Minker and Nicolas stated that logic and databases was a field in its own right (see [131]). This was the first time that this designation was made. The impetus for this started approximately twenty years ago in 1976 when I visited Gallaire ..."
Abstract

Cited by 55 (1 self)
 Add to MetaCart
. At a workshop held in Toulouse, France in 1977, Gallaire, Minker and Nicolas stated that logic and databases was a field in its own right (see [131]). This was the first time that this designation was made. The impetus for this started approximately twenty years ago in 1976 when I visited Gallaire and Nicolas in Toulouse, France, which culminated in a workshop held in Toulouse, France in 1977. It is appropriate, then to provide an assessment as to what has been achieved in the twenty years since the field started as a distinct discipline. In this retrospective I shall review developments that have taken place in the field, assess the contributions that have been made, consider the status of implementations of deductive databases and discuss the future of work in this area. 1 Introduction As described in [234], the use of logic and deduction in databases started in the late 1960s. Prominent among the developments was the work by Levien and Maron [202, 203, 199, 200, 201] and Kuhns [1...
Focusing the inverse method for linear logic
 Proceedings of CSL 2005
, 2005
"... 1.1 Quantification and the subformula property.................. 3 1.2 Ground forward sequent calculus......................... 5 1.3 Lifting to free variables............................... 10 ..."
Abstract

Cited by 38 (11 self)
 Add to MetaCart
1.1 Quantification and the subformula property.................. 3 1.2 Ground forward sequent calculus......................... 5 1.3 Lifting to free variables............................... 10