Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-b95js Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-02-11T07:02:53.877Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A declarative semantics for CLP with qualification and proximity*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 July 2010

MARIO RODRÍGUEZ-ARTALEJO  and
CARLOS A. ROMERO-DÍAZ
MARIO RODRÍGUEZ-ARTALEJO
Affiliation:
Departamento de Sistemas Informáticos y Computación, Universidad Complutense, Facultad de Informática, 28040 Madrid, Spain (e-mail: mario@sip.ucm.es, cromdia@fdi.ucm.es)
CARLOS A. ROMERO-DÍAZ
Affiliation:
Departamento de Sistemas Informáticos y Computación, Universidad Complutense, Facultad de Informática, 28040 Madrid, Spain (e-mail: mario@sip.ucm.es, cromdia@fdi.ucm.es)
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Uncertainty in Logic Programming has been investigated during the last decades, dealing with various extensions of the classical LP paradigm and different applications. Existing proposals rely on different approaches, such as clause annotations based on uncertain truth values, qualification values as a generalization of uncertain truth values, and unification based on proximity relations. On the other hand, the CLP scheme has established itself as a powerful extension of LP that supports efficient computation over specialized domains while keeping a clean declarative semantics. In this paper we propose a new scheme SQCLP designed as an extension of CLP that supports qualification values and proximity relations. We show that several previous proposals can be viewed as particular cases of the new scheme, obtained by partial instantiation. We present a declarative semantics for SQCLP that is based on observables, providing fixpoint and proof-theoretical characterizations of least program models as well as an implementation-independent notion of goal solutions.

Keywords

constraint logic programmingqualification domains and valuesproximity relations
Type
Regular Papers
Information
Theory and Practice of Logic Programming , Volume 10 , Special Issue 4-6: 26th International Conference on Logic Programming , July 2010 , pp. 627 - 642
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2010

References

Arenas, P., Fernández, A. J., Gil, A., López-Fraguas, F. J., Rodríguez-Artalejo, M., and Sáenz-Pérez, F. 2007. , a multiparadigm declarative language. version 2.3.1. R. Caballero and J. Sánchez (Eds.), Available at http://toy.sourceforge.net.Google Scholar
Bistarelli, S., Montanari, U., and Rossi, F. 2001. Semiring-based constraint logic programming: Syntax and semantics. ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems 3, 1 (January), 1–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Caballero, R., Rodríguez-Artalejo, M., and Romero-Díaz, C. A. 2008. Similarity-based reasoning in qualified logic programming. In PPDP '08: Proceedings of the 10th international ACM SIGPLAN conference on Principles and Practice of Declarative Programming. ACM, Valencia, Spain, 185–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Caballero, R., Rodríguez-Artalejo, M., and Romero-Díaz, C. A. 2009. Qualified computations in functional logic programming. In Logic Programming (ICLP'09), Hill, P. and Warren, D., Eds. LNCS, vol. 5649. Springer, Berlin, 449–463.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Campi, A., Damiani, E., Guinea, S., Marrara, S., Pasi, G., and Spoletini, P. 2009. A fuzzy extension of the XPath query language. Journal of Intelligent Information Systems 33, 3 (December), 285–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dubois, D. and Prade, H. 1980. Fuzzy Sets and Systems: Theory and Applications. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
Freuder, E. C. and Wallace, R. J. 1992. Partial constraint satisfaction. Artificial Intelligence 58, 1–3, 21–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gabbrielli, M., Dore, G. M., and Levi, G. 1995. Observable semantics for constraint logic programs. Journal of Logic and Computation 5, 2, 133–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Georget, Y. and Codognet, P. 1998. Compiling semiring-based constraints with CLP(FD, S). In Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Principles and Practice of Constraint Programming. LNCS, vol. 1520. Springer, 205–219.Google Scholar
Guadarrama, S., Muñoz, S., and Vaucheret, C. 2004. Fuzzy prolog: A new approach using soft constraint propagation. Fuzzy Sets and Systems 144, 1, 127–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hanus, M. 2006. Curry: An integrated functional logic language, version 0.8.2. M. Hanus (Ed.), Available at http://www.informatik.uni-kiel.de/~curry/report.html.Google Scholar
Höhfeld, M. and Smolka, G. 1988. Definite Relations over Constraint Languages. Technical Report LILOG Report 53, IBM Deutschland.Google Scholar
Jaffar, J. and Lassez, J. L. 1987. Constraint logic programming. In Proceedings of the 14th ACM SIGACT-SIGPLAN symposium on Principles of Programming Languages (POPL'87). ACM New York, 111–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jaffar, J., Michaylov, S., Stuckey, P. J., and Yap, R. H. C. 1992. The CLP(R) language and system. ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems 14 (3), 339–395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Julián-Iranzo, P. and Rubio-Manzano, C. 2009. A declarative semantics for Bousi~Prolog. In PPDP'09: Proceedings of the 11th ACM SIGPLAN conference on Principles and Practice of Declarative Programming. ACM, Valencia, Spain, 149–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kifer, M. and Subrahmanian, V. S. 1992. Theory of generalized annotated logic programs and their applications. Journal of Logic Programming 12, 3–4, 335–367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krajči, S., Lencses, R., and Vojtáš, P. 2004. A comparison of fuzzy and annonated logic programming. Fuzzy Sets and Systems 144, 173–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Medina, J., Ojeda-Aciego, M., and Vojtáš, P. 2001. Multi-adjoint logic programming with continuous semantics. In Logic Programming and Non-Monotonic Reasoning (LPNMR'01), Eiter, T., Faber, W., and Truszczyinski, M., Eds. LNAI, vol. 2173. Springer, 351–364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moreno, G. and Pascual, V. 2007. Formal properties of needed narrowing with similarity relations. Electronic Notes in Theoretical Computer Science 188, 21–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ng, R. T. and Subrahmanian, V. S. 1992. Probabilistic logic programming. Information and Computation 101, 2, 150–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Riezler, S. 1998. Probabilistic Constraint Logic Programming. PhD thesis, Neuphilologischen Fakultät del Universität Tübingen.Google Scholar
Rodríguez-Artalejo, M. and Romero-Díaz, C. A. 2008. Quantitative logic programming revisited. In Functional and Logic Programming (FLOPS'08), Garrigue, J. and Hermenegildo, M., Eds. LNCS, vol. 4989. Springer, 272–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rodríguez-Artalejo, M. and Romero-Díaz, C. A. 2010. Fixpoint and proof-Theoretic Semantics for CLP with Qualification and Proximity. Technical Report SIC-1-10, Universidad Complutense, Departamento de Sistemas Informáticos y Computación, Madrid, Spain. url: federwin.sip.ucm.es/sic/investigacion/publicaciones/informes-tecnicos.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sessa, M. I. 2002. Approximate reasoning by similarity-based SLD resolution. Theoretical Computer Science 275, 1–2, 389–426.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shenoi, S. and Melton, A. 1999. Proximity relations in the fuzzy relational database model. Fuzzy Sets and Systems 100, supl., 51–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Emden, M. H. 1986. Quantitative deduction and its fixpoint theory. Journal of Logic Programming 3, 1, 37–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vojtáš, P. 2001. Fuzzy logic programming. Fuzzy Sets and Systems 124, 361–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zadeh, L. A. 1971. Similarity relations and fuzzy orderings. Information Sciences 3, 2, 177–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar