Skip to main content

A hierarchy of semantics for normal constraint logic programs

  • Logic Programming
  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Algebraic and Logic Programming (ALP 1996)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNCS,volume 1139))

Included in the following conference series:

Abstract

The different properties characterizing the operational behavior of logic programs can be organized in a hierarchy of fixpoint semantics related by Galois insertions, having the least Herbrand model as most abstract semantics, and the SLD operational semantics as most concrete semantics. The choice of a semantics in the hierarchy allows to model precisely the program properties of interest while getting rid of useless details of too concrete semantics, which is crucial for the development of efficient program analysis tools.

The aim of this paper is to push forward these methods by making them apply to normal (constraint) logic programs, that is full first-order (non Horn) programs. The fixpoint semantics defined by the first author for the rule of constructive negation by pruning is at the center of the hierarchy developed in this paper. We show that that semantics can be obtained by concretization of Kunen's semantics defined as a fixpoint, taken as the most abstract semantics of the hierarchy, and that by further concretization it leads to a new operational semantics for normal CLP programs. The different observable properties of the program, such as successful derivations, finite failure, set of computed answer constraints, etc. are modeled by precise semantics in the hierarchy.

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

Access this chapter

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. A. Bossi, M. Gabbrielli, G. Levi, M. Martelli, “The s-semantics approach: theory and applications”, Journal of Logic Programming, 19–20, pp.149–197, 1994.

    Google Scholar 

  2. P. Cousot, R. Cousot, “Systematic design of program analysis frameworks”, In Proc. 6th Annual Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages, pp.269–282, 1979.

    Google Scholar 

  3. P. Cousot, R. Cousot, “Abstract interpretation and application to logic programs”, Journal of Logic Programming, 13(2 and 3), pp.103–179, 1992.

    Google Scholar 

  4. D. Chan, “Constructive negation based on the completed database”, in: R.A. Kowalski and K.A. Bowen (eds), Proc. of the fifth International Conference on Logic Programming, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, pp.11–125, 1988.

    Google Scholar 

  5. M. Comini, G. Levi, M.C. Meo, “Compositionality in SLD-derivations and their abstractions”, Proc. of International Symposium on Logic Programming, ILPS'95, Portland, MIT Press, pp.561–575, 1995.

    Google Scholar 

  6. K. Doets “From Logic to Logic Programming”, MIT Press, 1992.

    Google Scholar 

  7. W. Drabent, “What is failure? An approach to constructive negation”, Acta Informatica, 32:1, pp.27–59, 1995.

    Google Scholar 

  8. F. Fages, “Constructive negation by pruning”, LIENS technical report 94-14, revised 95-24. To appear in the Journal of Logic Programming, 1996.

    Google Scholar 

  9. M. Fitting, “A Kripke/Kleene semantics for logic programs”, Journal of Logic Programming, 2(4), pp.295–312, 1985.

    Google Scholar 

  10. M. Falaschi, G. Levi, M. Martelli, C. Palamidessi, “Declarative modeling of the operational behavior of logic programs”, Theoretical Computer Science, 69(3), pp.289–318, 1989.

    Google Scholar 

  11. M. Falaschi, G. Levi, M. Martelli, C. Palamidessi, “A model-theoretic reconstruction of the operational semantics of logic programs”, Information and Computation, 103, pp.86–113, 1993.

    Google Scholar 

  12. R. Giacobazzi, “”Optimal” collecting semantics for analysis in a hierarchy of logic program semantics”, Proc of 13th STACS'96, C. Puech and R Reischuk Ed., LNCS 1046, Springer Verlag, pp.503–514. 1996.

    Google Scholar 

  13. R. Gori, “A hierarchy of semantics for CLP({ie91-01}) general programs”, Report of DEA IMA, LIENS, École Normale Supérieure, Paris, 1995.

    Google Scholar 

  14. J. Jaffar, J.L. Lassez, “Constraint Logic Programming”, Proc. of POPL'87, Munich, pp.111–119, 1987.

    Google Scholar 

  15. R. Kemp, G. Ringwood, “Reynolds base, Clark models and Heyting semantics of logic programs”, Technical Report, Queen Mary and Westfield College, 1991, revised 1995.

    Google Scholar 

  16. K. Kunen, “Negation in logic programming”, Journal of Logic Programming, 4(3), pp.289–308, 1987.

    Google Scholar 

  17. K. Kunen, “Signed data dependencies in logic programming”, Journal of Logic Programming, 7(3), pp.231–245, 1989.

    Google Scholar 

  18. M. Maher, “Equivalences of logic programs”, in: J. Minker (ed.) Foundations of deductive databases and logic programming, Morgan Kaufmann, pp.627–658, Los Altos, CA, 1988.

    Google Scholar 

  19. P. Stuckey, “Constructive negation for constraint logic programming”, Proc. LICS'91, pp.328–339, 1991.

    Google Scholar 

  20. P. Stuckey “Negation and constraint logic programming”, Information and Computation 118(1), pp.12–33 (1995).

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Michael Hanus Mario RodrĂ­guez-Artalejo

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 1996 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

Fages, F., Gori, R. (1996). A hierarchy of semantics for normal constraint logic programs. In: Hanus, M., RodrĂ­guez-Artalejo, M. (eds) Algebraic and Logic Programming. ALP 1996. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 1139. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-61735-3_5

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-61735-3_5

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-540-61735-8

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-540-70672-4

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics