skip to main content
article

The DLV system for knowledge representation and reasoning

Published:01 July 2006Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

Disjunctive Logic Programming (DLP) is an advanced formalism for knowledge representation and reasoning, which is very expressive in a precise mathematical sense: it allows one to express every property of finite structures that is decidable in the complexity class ΣP2 (NPNP). Thus, under widely believed assumptions, DLP is strictly more expressive than normal (disjunction-free) logic programming, whose expressiveness is limited to properties decidable in NP. Importantly, apart from enlarging the class of applications which can be encoded in the language, disjunction often allows for representing problems of lower complexity in a simpler and more natural fashion.This article presents the DLV system, which is widely considered the state-of-the-art implementation of disjunctive logic programming, and addresses several aspects. As for problem solving, we provide a formal definition of its kernel language, function-free disjunctive logic programs (also known as disjunctive datalog), extended by weak constraints, which are a powerful tool to express optimization problems. We then illustrate the usage of DLV as a tool for knowledge representation and reasoning, describing a new declarative programming methodology which allows one to encode complex problems (up to ΔP3-complete problems) in a declarative fashion. On the foundational side, we provide a detailed analysis of the computational complexity of the language of DLV, and by deriving new complexity results we chart a complete picture of the complexity of this language and important fragments thereof.Furthermore, we illustrate the general architecture of the DLV system, which has been influenced by these results. As for applications, we overview application front-ends which have been developed on top of DLV to solve specific knowledge representation tasks, and we briefly describe the main international projects investigating the potential of the system for industrial exploitation. Finally, we report about thorough experimentation and benchmarking, which has been carried out to assess the efficiency of the system. The experimental results confirm the solidity of DLV and highlight its potential for emerging application areas like knowledge management and information integration.

References

  1. Anger, C., Konczak, K., and Linke, T. 2001. NoMoRe: A system for non-monotonic reasoning. In Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Logic Programming and Nonmonotonic Reasoning (LPNMR'01), Vienna, Austria, T. Eiter, W. Faber, and M. Truszczyński, Eds. Lecture Notes in Computer Science/Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence, vol. 2173. Springer, Berlin, Germany, 406--410.]] Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. Apt, K. and Bol, N. 1994. Logic programming and negation: A survey. J. Logic Programm. 19/20, 9--71.]]Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  3. Apt, K. R., Blair, H. A., and Walker, A. 1988. Towards a theory of declarative knowledge. In Foundations of Deductive Databases and Logic Programming, J. Minker, Ed. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco, CA, 89--148.]] Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. Aravindan, C., Dix, J., and Niemelä, I. 1997. Dislop: A research project on disjunctive logic programming. AI Commun. Europ. J. Artific. Intell. 10, 3/4, 151--165.]]Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Babovich, Y. 2002. Cmodels homepage. http://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/tag/cmodels.html.]]Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Baral, C. 2003. Knowledge Representation, Reasoning and Declarative Problem Solving. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K.]] Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Baral, C. and Gelfond, M. 1994. Logic programming and knowledge representation. J. Logic Programm. 19/20, 73--148.]]Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  8. Ben-Eliyahu, R. and Dechter, R. 1994. Propositional semantics for disjunctive logic programs. Ann. Math. Artific. Intell. 12, 53--87.]]Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  9. Ben-Eliyahu, R. and Palopoli, L. 1994. Reasoning with minimal models: Efficient algorithms and applications. In Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR-94). 39--50.]]Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Brass, S. and Dix, J. 1995. Disjunctive semantics based upon partial and bottom-up evaluation. In Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Logic Programm., Tokyo, Japan, L. Sterling, Ed. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 199--213.]]Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Brewka, G. and Eiter, T. 1999. Preferred answer sets for extended logic programs. Artific. Intell. 109, 1-2, 297--356.]] Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Brewka, G., Niemelä, I., Schaub, T., and Truszczyński, M. (organizers). 2002. Dagstuhl Seminar Nr. 0238, Nonmonotonic Reasoning, Answer Set Programming and Constraints, September 15--20, 2002. System Competition. Go online to http://www.cs.uni-potsdam.de/~canger/dagstuhl.html.]]Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Buccafurri, F., Faber, W., and Leone, N. 2002. Disjunctive logic programs with inheritance. Theor. Pract. Logic Programm. 2, 3.]] Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. Buccafurri, F., Leone, N., and Rullo, P. 2000. Enhancing disjunctive datalog by constraints. IEEE Trans. Knowl. Data Eng. 12, 5, 845--860.]] Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. Cadoli, M., Eiter, T., and Gottlob, G. 1997a. Default logic as a query language. IEEE Trans. Knowl. Data Eng. 9, 3 (May/June), 448--463.]] Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. Cadoli, M., Giovanardi, A., and Schaerf, M. 1997b. Experimental analysis of the computational cost of evaluating quantified boolean formulae. In Proceedings of the 5th Congress of the Italian Association for Artificial Intelligence (AI*IA 97), Rome, Italy. Lecture Notes in Computer Science 1321, Springer, Berlin, Germany, 207--218.]] Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. Calimeri, F., Faber, W., Leone, N., and Pfeifer, G. 2002. Pruning operators for answer set programming systems. In Proceedings of the 9th International Workshop on Non-Monotonic Reasoning (NMR'2002). 200--209.]]Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Chen, W. and Warren, D. S. 1996. Computation of stable models and its integration with logical query processing. IEEE Trans. Knowl. Data Eng. 8, 5, 742--757.]] Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. Cholewiński, P., Marek, V. W., Mikitiuk, A., and Truszczyński, M. 1999. Computing with default logic. Artific. Intell. 112, 2--3, 105--147.]] Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. Cholewiński, P., Marek, V. W., and Truszczyński, M. 1996. Default reasoning system DeReS. In Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR '96), Cambridge, MA. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco, CA, 518--528.]]Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. Clark, K. 1978. Negation as failure. In Logic and Data Bases, H. Gallaire and J. Minker, Eds. Plenum Press, New York, NY, 293--322.]]Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Dantsin, E., Eiter, T., Gottlob, G., and Voronkov, A. 2001. Complexity and expressive power of logic programming. ACM Comput. Surv. 33, 3, 374--425.]] Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. Delgrande, J., Schaub, T., and Tompits, H. 2001. plp: A generic compiler for ordered logic programs. In Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Logic Programming and Nonmonotonic Reasoning (LPNMR-01), T. Eiter, W. Faber, and M. Truszczyński, Eds. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 2173, Springer, Berlin, Germany, 411--415.]] Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. Dell'Armi, T., Faber, W., Ielpa, G., Leone, N., and Pfeifer, G. 2003. Aggregate functions in disjunctive logic programm: Semantics, complexity, and implementation in DLV. In Proceedings of the 18th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI 2003), Acapulco, Mexico. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco, CA.]]Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. Dix, J. 1995. Semantics of logic programs: Their intuitions and formal properties. An overview. In Logic, Action and Information. Proceedings of the Konstanz Colloquium in Logic and Information (LogIn'92). Walter de Gruyter, Berlin, Germany, 241--329.]]Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. Dix, J. and Furbach, U. 1996. The DFG project DisLoP on disjunctive logic programming. Computat. Logic 2, 2, 89--90.]]Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. Dix, J., Gottlob, G., and Marek, V. W. 1996. Reducing disjunctive to non-disjunctive semantics by shift-operations. Fundamenta Informaticae 28, 87--100.]] Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  28. Dix, J., Kuter, U., and Nau, D. 2002. Planning in answer set programming using ordered task decomposition. Theo. Pract. Logic Programm. Revised paper submitted for publication.]]Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. East, D. and Truszczyński, M. 2000. dcs: An implementation of DATALOG with constraints. In Proceedings of the 8th International Workshop on Non-Monotonic Reasoning (NMR'2000), Breckenridge, Colorado, USA, C. Baral and M. Truszczyński, Eds.]]Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. East, D. and Truszczyński, M. 2001a. System description: aspps---An implementation of answer-set programming with propositional schemata. In Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Logic Programming and Nonmonotonic Reasoning (LPNMR'01), Vienna, Austria, T. Eiter, W. Faber, and M. Truszczyński, Eds. Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence, vol. 2173. Springer, Berlin, Germany, 402--405.]] Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  31. East, D. and Truszczyński, M. 2001b. Propositional satisfiability in answer-set programming. In Proceedings of the Joint German/Austrian Conference on Artificial Intelligence, KI'2001. Lecture Notes in Arificial Intelligence, vol. 2174. Springer Verlag, Berlin, Germany, 138--153.]] Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  32. Egly, U., Eiter, T., Tompits, H., and Woltran, S. 2000. Solving advanced reasoning tasks using quantified boolean formulas. In Proceedings of the 17th National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI'00), July 30--August 3, 2000, Austin, Texas USA. AAAI Press Stanford, CA/MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 417--422.]] Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  33. Eiter, T., Faber, W., Gottlob, G., Koch, C., Leone, N., Mateis, C., Pfeifer, G., and Scarcello, F. 1999. The DLV system. In Workshop on Logic-Based Artificial Intelligence, Washington, DC, J. Minker, Ed. Computer Science Department, University of Maryland, College Park, MD. Workshop notes.]]Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  34. Eiter, T., Faber, W., Leone, N., and Pfeifer, G. 2000a. Declarative problem-solving using the DLV system. In Logic-Based Artificial Intelligence, J. Minker, Ed. Kluwer Academic Press, New York, NY, 79--103.]] Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  35. Eiter, T., Faber, W., Leone, N., and Pfeifer, G. 2001a. Computing preferred and weakly preferred answer sets by meta-interpretation in answer set programming. In Proceedings of the AAAI 2001 Spring Symposium on Answer Set Programming: Towards Efficient and Scalable Knowledge Representation and Reasoning, A. Provetti and S. T. Cao, Eds. AAAI Press, Stanford, CA, 45--52.]]Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  36. Eiter, T., Faber, W., Leone, N., and Pfeifer, G. 2003a. Computing preferred answer sets by meta-interpretation in answer set programming. Theor. Pract. Logic Programm. 3, 463--498.]] Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  37. Eiter, T., Faber, W., Leone, N., Pfeifer, G., and Polleres, A. 2000b. Planning under incomplete knowledge. In Proceedings of the First International Conference on Computational Logic (CL 2000), London, UK, J. Lloyd et al., Eds. Lecture Notes in Computer Science/Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence, vol. 1861. Springer, Berlin, Germany, 807--821.]] Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  38. Eiter, T., Faber, W., Leone, N., Pfeifer, G., and Polleres, A. 2001b. A logic programming approach to knowledge-state planning: Semantics and complexity. Tech. rep. INFSYS RR-1843-01-11. Institut für Informationssysteme, Technische Universität Wien, Vienna, Austria. To appear in ACM Transactions on Computational Logic.]] Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  39. Eiter, T., Faber, W., Leone, N., Pfeifer, G., and Polleres, A. 2003b. A logic programming approach to knowledge-state planning, II: The DLVK system. Artificial Intelligence 144, 1--2, 157--211.]] Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  40. Eiter, T., Faber, W., Leone, N., Pfeifer, G., and Polleres, A. 2002b. Answer set planning under action costs. In Proceedings of the 8th Europ. Conference on Artificial Intelligence (JELIA), S. Flesca, S. Greco, G. Ianni, and N. Leone, Eds. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 2424, Springer, Berlin, Germany, 186--197.]] Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  41. Eiter, T., Fink, M., Sabbatini, G., and Tompits, H. 2001d. A framework for declarative update specifications in logic programs. In Proceedings of the 17th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI-01), B. Nebel, Ed. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco, CA, 649--654. See also Tech. rep. INFSYS RR-1843-02-07, TU Wien, Vienna, Austria, 2002.]]Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  42. Eiter, T., Fink, M., Sabbatini, G., and Tompits, H. 2001e. An update front-end for extended logic programs. In Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Logic Programm. and Nonmonotonic Reasoning (LPNMR-01), T. Eiter, W. Faber, and M. Truszczyński, Eds. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 2173. Springer, Berlin, Germany, 397--401.]] Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  43. Eiter, T., Fink, M., Sabbatini, G., and Tompits, H. 2002c. On properties of update sequences based on causal rejection. Theor. Pract. Logic Programm. 2, 6, 721--777.]] Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  44. Eiter, T. and Gottlob, G. 1995. On the computational cost of disjunctive logic programming: Propositional case. Ann. Math. Artificial Intelligence 15, 3/4, 289--323.]]Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  45. Eiter, T., Gottlob, G., and Leone, N. 1997a. Abduction from logic programs: Semantics and complexity. Theoret. Comput. Sci. 189, 1--2 (Dec.), 129--177.]] Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  46. Eiter, T., Gottlob, G., and Mannila, H. 1997b. Disjunctive datalog. ACM Trans. Database Syst. 22, 3 (Sept.), 364--418.]] Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  47. Eiter, T., Leone, N., Mateis, C., Pfeifer, G., and Scarcello, F. 1998a. The KR System dlv: Progress report, comparisons and benchmarks. In Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR'98), A. G. Cohn, L. Schubert, and S. C. Shapiro, Eds. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco, CA, 406--417.]]Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  48. Eiter, T., Leone, N., and Saccà, D. 1997c. On the partial semantics for disjunctive deductive databases. Ann. Math. Artificial Intelligence 19, 1--2 (Apr.), 59--96.]] Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  49. Eiter, T., Leone, N., and Saccá, D. 1998b. Expressive power and complexity of partial models for disjunctive deductive databases. Theoret. Comput. Sci. 206, 1--2 (Oct.), 181--218.]] Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  50. Faber, W., Leone, N., Mateis, C., and Pfeifer, G. 1999. Using database optimization techniques for nonmonotonic reasoning. In Proceedings of the 7th International Workshop on Deductive Databases and Logic Programming (DDLP'99), I. O. Committee, Ed. Prolog Association of Japan, Tokyo, Japan, 135--139.]]Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  51. Faber, W., Leone, N., and Pfeifer, G. 2001. Experimenting with heuristics for answer set programming. In Proceedings of the 17th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI 2001), Seattle, WA, USA. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco, CA, 635--640.]]Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  52. Faber, W. and Pfeifer, G. 1996. DLV homepage. Go to http://www.dlvsystem.com/.]]Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  53. Fernández, J. and Minker, J. 1992. Semantics of disjunctive deductive databases. In Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Database Theory (ICDT-92). 21--50.]] Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  54. Gelfond, M. and Lifschitz, V. 1988. The stable model semantics for logic programming. In Logic Programming: Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference and Symposium. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1070--1080.]]Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  55. Gelfond, M. and Lifschitz, V. 1991. Classical negation in logic programs and disjunctive databases. New Generat. Comput. 9, 365--385.]]Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  56. Gelfond, M. and Lifschitz, V. 1998. Action languages. Electron. Trans. Artificial Intelligence 2, 3-4, 193--210.]]Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  57. Gent, I. and Walsh, T. 1999. Beyond NP: The QSAT phase transition. In Proceedings of the 16th National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI/IAAI 1999), Orlando, Florida, USA. AAAI Press, Stanford, CA/MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 648--653.]] Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  58. Giunchiglia, E. and Lifschitz, V. 1998. An action language based on causal explanation: Preliminary report. In Proceedings of the 15th National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI '98). 623--630.]] Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  59. Gottlob, G. 1994. Complexity and expressive power of disjunctive logic programming. In Proceedings of the International Logic Programming Symposium (ILPS '94), Ithaca, NY, M. Bruynooghe, Ed. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 23--42.]] Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  60. Gottlob, G., Leone, N., and Veith, H. 1999. Succinctness as a source of expression complexity. Ann. Pure Appl. Logic 97, 1--3, 231--260.]]Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  61. Greco, S. 1999. Optimization of disjunction queries. In Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Logic Programming (ICLP'99), Las Cruces, New Mexico, USA, D. D. Schreye, Ed. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 441--455.]] Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  62. Janhunen, T., Niemela, I., Simons, P., and You, J.-H. 2000. Partiality and disjunctions in stable model semantics. In Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR 2000), Breckenridge, Colorado, USA, A. G. Cohn, F. Giunchiglia, and B. Selman, Eds. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco, CA, 411--419.]]Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  63. Janhunen, T., Niemelä, I., Seipel, D., Simons, P., and You, J.-H. 2003. Unfolding partiality and disjunctions in stable model semantics. Tech. rep. cs.AI/0303009. Go online to arXiv.org.]]Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  64. Johnson, D. S. 1990. A catalog of complexity classes. In Handbook of Theoretical Computer Science, J. van Leeuwen, Ed. Vol. A. Elsevier Science, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Chapt. 2.]] Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  65. Knuth, D. E. 1994. The Stanford GraphBase: A Platform for Combinatorial Computing. ACM Press, New York, NY.]] Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  66. Koch, C. and Leone, N. 1999. Stable model checking made easy. In Proceedings of the 16th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI'99, Stockholm, Sweden, T. Dean, Ed. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco, CA, 70--75.]] Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  67. Koch, C., Leone, N., and Pfeifer, G. 2003. Enhancing disjunctive logic programming systems by SAT checkers. Artificial Intelligence 15, 1--2 (Dec.), 177--212.]] Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  68. Leone, N., Perri, S., and Scarcello, F. 2001. Improving ASP instantiators by join-ordering methods. In Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Logic Programming and Nonmonotonic Reasoning (LPNMR'01), Vienna, Austria, September 2001, T. Eiter, W. Faber, and M. Truszczyński, Eds. Lecture Notes in Computer Science/Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence, vol. 2173. Springer, Berlin, Germany.]] Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  69. Leone, N., Rullo, P., and Scarcello, F. 1997. Disjunctive stable models: Unfounded sets, fixpoint semantics and computation. Inform. Computat. 135, 2 (Jun.), 69--112.]] Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  70. Lifschitz, V. 1996. Foundations of logic programming. In Principles of Knowledge Representation, G. Brewka, Ed. CSLI Publications, Stanford, CA, 69--127.]] Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  71. Lifschitz, V. 2002. Answer set programming and plan generation. Artificial Intelligence 138, 39--54.]] Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  72. Lifschitz, V., Pearce, D., and Valverde, A. 2001. Strongly equivalent logic programs. ACM Trans. Computat. Logic 2, 4, 526--541.]] Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  73. Lifschitz, V. and Turner, H. 1994. Splitting a logic program. In Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Logic Programming (ICLP'94), Santa Margherita Ligure, Italy, P. Van Hentenryck, Ed. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 23--37.]] Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  74. Lin, F. and Zhao, Y. 2002. ASSAT: Computing answer sets of a logic program by SAT solvers. In Proceedings of the 18th National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI-2002), Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. AAAI Press, Stanford, CA/MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.]] Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  75. Lobo, J., Minker, J., and Rajasekar, A. 1992. Foundations of Disjunctive Logic Programming. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.]] Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  76. Marek, W. and Truszczyński, M. 1991. Autoepistemic logic. J. Assoc. Comput. Mach. 38, 3, 588--619.]] Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  77. McCain, N. and Turner, H. 1998. Satisfiability planning with causal theories. In Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR'98), A. G. Cohn, L. Schubert, and S. C. Shapiro, Eds. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco, CA, 212--223.]]Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  78. Minker, J. 1982. On indefinite data bases and the closed world assumption. In Proceedings of the 6th Conference on Automated Deduction (CADE '82), D. Loveland, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 138. Springer, New York, NY, 292--308.]] Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  79. Minker, J. 1994. Overview of Disjunctive Logic Programming. Ann. Math. Artificial Intelligence 12, 1--24.]]Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  80. Minker, J. 1996. Logic and databases: A 20 year retrospective. In Proceedings of the International Workshop on Logic in Databases (LID '96). Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 1154. Springer, Berlin, Germany, 3--57.]] Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  81. Nicolas, P., Saubion, F., and Stéphan, I. 2002. Answer Set Programming by ant colony optimization. In Proceedings of the 8th Europ. Conference on Artificial Intelligence (JELIA), S. Flesca, S. Greco, G. Ianni, and N. Leone, Eds. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 2424. Springer, Berlin, Germany, 186--197.]] Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  82. Niemelä, I. and Simons, P. 1997. Smodels---an implementation of the stable model and well-founded semantics for normal logic programs. In Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Logic Programming and Nonmonotonic Reasoning (LPNMR'97), J. Dix, U. Furbach, and A. Nerode, Eds. Lecture Notes in Computer Science/Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence, vol. 1265. Springer, Berlin, Germany, 420--429.]] Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  83. Niemelä, I., Simons, P., and Syrjänen, T. 2000. Smodels: A system for Answer Set Programming. In Proceedings of the 8th International Workshop on Non-Monotonic Reasoning (NMR'2000), Breckenridge, Colorado, USA, C. Baral and M. Truszczyński, Eds.]]Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  84. Papadimitriou, C. H. 1984. The complexity of unique solutions. Assoc. Comput. Mach. 31, 492--500.]] Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  85. Papadimitriou, C. H. 1994. Computational Complexity. Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.]]Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  86. Pearce, D., Sarsakov, V., Schaub, T., Tompits, H., and Woltran, S. 2002. A polynomial translation of logic programs with nested expressions into disjunctive logic programs: Preliminary report. In Proceedings of the 9th International Workshop on Non-Monotonic Reasoning (NMR'2002), Toulouse, France.]] Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  87. Pfeifer, G. 2004. Improving the model generation/checking interplay to enhance the evaluation of disjunctive programs. In Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Logic Programming and Non-Monotonic Reasoning (LPNMR-7), V. Lifschitz and I. Niemelä, Eds. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 2923. Springer, Berlin, Germany, 220--233.]]Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  88. Poole, D. 1989. Explanation and prediction: An architecture for default and abductive reasoning. Computat. Intell. 5, 1, 97--110.]] Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  89. Przymusinski, T. 1990. Stationary semantics for disjunctive logic programs and deductive databases. In Proceedings of the North American Conference on Logic Programming. 40--62.]] Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  90. Przymusinski, T. 1995. Static semantics for normal and disjunctive logic programs. Ann. Math. Artificial Intelligence 14, 323--357.]]Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  91. Przymusinski, T. C. 1988. On the declarative semantics of deductive databases and logic programs. In Foundations of Deductive Databases and Logic Programming, J. Minker, Ed. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco, CA, 193--216.]] Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  92. Przymusinski, T. C. 1991. Stable semantics for disjunctive programs. New Generat. Comp. 9, 401--424.]]Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  93. Radziszowski, S. P. 1994. Small RAMSEY numbers. Electron. J. Combinatorics 1. Revision 9: July 15, 2002.]]Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  94. Rao, P., Sagonas, K. F., Swift, T., Warren, D. S., and Freire, J. 1997. XSB: A system for efficiently computing well-founded semantics. In Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Logic Programming and Non-Monotonic Reasoning (LPNMR'97), J. Dix, U. Furbach, and A. Nerode, Eds. Lecture Notes in Computer Science/Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence, vol. 1265. Springer, Berlin, Germany, 2--17.]] Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  95. Reiter, R. 1987. A theory of diagnosis from first principles. Artificial Intelligence 32, 57--95.]] Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  96. Ross, K. 1990. The well-founded semantics for Disjunctive Logic Programs. In Deductive and Object-Oriented Databases, W. Kim, J.-M. Nicolas, and S. Nishio, Eds. Elsevier Science, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 385--402.]]Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  97. Sakama, C. 1989. Possible model semantics for disjunctive databases. In Proceedings of the First International Conference on Deductive and Object-Oriented Databases (DOOD-89). North-Holland, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 369--383.]]Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  98. Schaub, T. and Wang, K. 2001. A comparative study of logic programs with preference. In Proceedings of the 17th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI 2001). Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco, CA, 597--602.]]Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  99. Seipel, D. and Thöne, H. 1994. DisLog---A system for reasoning in disjunctive deductive databases. In Proceedings of the International Workshop on the Deductive Approach to Information Systems and Databases (DAISD'94), A. Olivé, Ed. Universitat Politecnica de Catalunya (UPC), Barcelona, Spain, 325--343.]]Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  100. Simons, P. 2000. Extending and implementing the stable model semantics. Ph.D. dissertation. Helsinki University of Technology, Helsinki, Finland.]]Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  101. Simons, P., Niemelä, I., and Soininen, T. 2002. Extending and implementing the stable model semantics. Artificial Intelligence 138, 1--2, 181--234.]] Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  102. Syrjänen, T. 2002. Lparse 1.0 user's manual. Go online to <URL:http://www.tcs.hut.fi/Software/smodels/lparse.ps.gz>.]]Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  103. van Gelder, A., Ross, K., and Schlipf, J. 1991. The well-founded semantics for general logic programs. Assoc. Comput. Mach. 38, 3, 620--650.]] Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  104. Wolfinger, B., Ed. 1994. Workshop: Disjunctive Logic Programming and Disjunctive Databases Proceedings, 13th IFIP World Computer Congress, Hamburg, Germany. German Society for Computer Science (GI) Springer, Berlin, Germany.]]Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  105. Zhao, Y. 2002. ASSAT homepage. Go online to http://assat.cs.ust.hk/.]]Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. The DLV system for knowledge representation and reasoning

          Recommendations

          Comments

          Login options

          Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

          Sign in

          Full Access

          • Published in

            cover image ACM Transactions on Computational Logic
            ACM Transactions on Computational Logic  Volume 7, Issue 3
            July 2006
            192 pages
            ISSN:1529-3785
            EISSN:1557-945X
            DOI:10.1145/1149114
            Issue’s Table of Contents

            Copyright © 2006 ACM

            Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

            Publisher

            Association for Computing Machinery

            New York, NY, United States

            Publication History

            • Published: 1 July 2006
            Published in tocl Volume 7, Issue 3

            Permissions

            Request permissions about this article.

            Request Permissions

            Check for updates

            Qualifiers

            • article

          PDF Format

          View or Download as a PDF file.

          PDF

          eReader

          View online with eReader.

          eReader