Abstract Managed multi-context systems (mMCSs) allow for the integration of heterogeneous knowledge sources in a modular and very general way. They were, however, mainly designed for static scenarios and are therefore not well-suited for dynamic environments in which continuous reasoning over such heterogeneous knowledge with constantly arriving streams of data is necessary. In this paper, we introduce reactive multi-context systems (rMCSs), a framework for reactive reasoning in the presence of heterogeneous knowledge sources and data streams. We show that rMCSs are indeed well-suited for this purpose by illustrating how several typical problems arising in the context of stream reasoning can be handled using them, by showing how inconsistencies possibly occurring in the integration of multiple knowledge sources can be handled, and by arguing that the potential non-determinism of rMCSs can be avoided if needed using an alternative, more skeptical well-founded semantics instead with beneficial computational properties. We also investigate the computational complexity of various reasoning problems related to rMCSs. Finally, we discuss related work, and show that rMCSs do not only generalize mMCSs to dynamic settings, but also capture extend relevant approaches w.r.t. dynamics in knowledge representation and stream reasoning.
The idea of EVOLP is that programs can update their own rules thus describing their possible self-evolution. Each self-evolution can be represented by a sequence of programs, each program corresponding to a state, and these sequences of programs can be treated as in Dynamic Logic Programs (DLPs) @cite_16 . Dynamic logic programs are sequences @math of generalized logic programs, whose semantics is based on the causal rejection principle. The idea is that the most recent rules are put in force, (where @math is to be seen as the most recent set of rules), and the previous rules are valid as far as possible, i.e., they are only kept if they do not conflict with more recent rules. Here, these intuitions about DLPs are sufficient, and we point to @cite_16 for more details.
@cite_16
2105631606
In this paper we investigate updates of knowledge bases represented by logic programs. In order to represent negative information, we use generalized logic programs which allow default negation not only in rule bodies but also in their heads. We start by introducing the notion of an update P U of one logic program P by another logic program U. Subsequently, we provide a precise semantic characterization of P U , and study some basic properties of program updates. In particular, we show that our update programs generalize the notion of interpretation update. We then extend this notion to compositional sequences of logic programs updates P1 P2 ; defining a dynamic program update, and thereby introducing the paradigm of dynamic logic programming. This paradigm significantly facilitates modularization of logic programming, and thus modularization of non-monotonic reasoning as a whole. Specifically, suppose that we are given a set of logic program modules, each describing a diAerent state of our knowledge of the world. DiAerent states may represent diAerent time points or diAerent sets of priorities or perhaps even diAerent viewpoints. Consequently, program modules may contain mutually contradictory as well as overlapping information. The role of the dynamic program update is to employ the mutual relationships existing between diAerent modules to precisely determine, at any given module composition stage, the declarative as well as the procedural semantics of the combined program resulting from the modules. ” 2000 Elsevier Science Inc. All rights reserved. In previous work, we proposed a logic-based framework in which computation is the execution of actions in an attempt to make reactive rules of the form if antecedent then consequent true in a canonical model of a logic program determined by an initial state, sequence of events, and the resulting sequence of subsequent states. In this model-theoretic semantics, reactive rules are the driving force, and logic programs play only a supporting role. In the canonical model, states, actions, and other events are represented with timestamps. But in the operational semantics (OS), for the sake of efficiency, timestamps are omitted and only the current state is maintained. State transitions are performed reactively by executing actions to make the consequents of rules true whenever the antecedents become true. This OS is sound, but incomplete. It cannot make reactive rules true by preventing their antecedents from becoming true, or by proactively making their consequents true before their antecedents become true. In this paper, we characterize the notion of reactive model, and prove that the OS can generate all and only such models. In order to focus on the main issues, we omit the logic programming component of the framework. Logic programs with ordered disjunction (LPODs) combine ideas underlying Qualitative Choice Logic (Brewka, Benferhat, & Le Berre 2002) and answer set programming. Logic programming under answer set semantics is extended with a new connective called ordered disjunction. The new connective allows us to represent alternative, ranked options for problem solutions in the heads of rules: A × B intuitively means: if possible A, but if A is not possible then at least B. The semantics of logic programs with ordered disjunction is based on a preference relation on answer sets. LPODs are useful for applications in design and configuration and can serve as a basis for qualitative decision making. The paper describes an extension of well-founded semantics for logic programs with two types of negation. In this extension information about preferences between rules can be expressed in the logical language and derived dynamically. This is achieved by using a reserved predicate symbol and a naming technique. Conflicts among rules are resolved whenever possible on the basis of derived preference information. The well-founded conclusions of prioritized logic programs can be computed in polynomial time. A legal reasoning example illustrates the usefulness of the approach. We introduce a methodology and framework for expressing general preference information in logic programming under the answer set semantics. An ordered logic program is an extended logic program in which rules are named by unique terms, and in which preferences among rules are given by a set of atoms of form s p t where s and t are names. An ordered logic program is transformed into a second, regular, extended logic program wherein the preferences are respected, in that the answer sets obtained in the transformed program correspond with the preferred answer sets of the original program. Our approach allows the specification of dynamic orderings, in which preferences can appear arbitrarily within a program. Static orderings (in which preferences are external to a logic program) are a trivial restriction of the general dynamic case. First, we develop a specific approach to reasoning with preferences, wherein the preference ordering specifies the order in which rules are to be applied. We then demonstrate the wide range of applicability of our framework by showing how other approaches, among them that of Brewka and Eiter, can be captured within our framework. Since the result of each of these transformations is an extended logic program, we can make use of existing implementations, such as dlv and smodels. To this end, we have developed a publicly available compiler as a front-end for these programming systems. We propose a combination of logic programming under the answer set semantics with the description logics SHIF(D) and SHOIN(D), which underly the Web ontology languages OWL Lite and OWL DL, respectively. To this end, we introduce description logic programs (or dl-programs), which consist of a description logic knowledge base L and a finite set P of description logic rules (or dl-rules). Such rules are similar to usual rules in nonmonotonic logic programs, but they may also contain queries to L, possibly under default negation, in their bodies. They allow for building rules on top of ontologies but also, to a limited extent, building ontologies on top of rules. We define a suite of semantics for various classes of dl-programs, which conservatively extend the standard semantics of the respective classes and coincide with it in absence of a description logic knowledge base. More concretely, we generalize positive, stratified, and arbitrary normal logic programs to dl-programs, and define a Herbrand model semantics for them. We show that they have similar properties as ordinary logic programs, and also provide fixpoint characterizations in terms of (iterated) consequence operators. For arbitrary dl-programs, we define answer sets by generalizing Gelfond and Lifschitz's notion of a transform, leading to a strong and a weak answer set semantics, which are based on reductions to the semantics of positive dl-programs and ordinary positive logic programs, respectively. We also show how the weak answer sets can be computed utilizing answer sets of ordinary normal logic programs. Furthermore, we show how some advanced reasoning tasks for the Semantic Web, including different forms of closed-world reasoning and default reasoning, as well as DL-safe rules, can be realized on top of dl-programs. Finally, we give a precise picture of the computational complexity of dl-programs, and we describe efficient algorithms and a prototype implementation of dl-programs which is available on the Web. The different semantics that can be assigned to a logic program correspond to different assumptions made concerning the atoms that are rule heads and whose logical values cannot be inferred from the rules. For example, the well founded semantics corresponds to the assumption that every such atom is false, while the Kripke-Kleene semantics corresponds to the assumption that every such atom is unknown. In this paper, we propose to unify and extend this assumption-based approach by introducing parameterized semantics for logic programs. The parameter holds the value that one assumes for all rule heads whose logical values cannot be inferred from the rules. We work within multi-valued logic with bilattice structure, and we consider the class of logic programs defined by Fitting.Following Fitting's approach, we define an operator that allows us to compute the parameterized semantic, and to compare and combine semantics obtained for different values of the parameter. We show that our approach captures and extends the usual semantics of conventional logic programs thereby unifying their computation. Among others, (1998) presented an approach for updating logic programs with sets of rules based on dynamic logic programs. We syntactically redefine dynamic logic programs and investigate their semantical properties, looking at them from perspectives such as a belief revision and abstract consequence relation view. Since the approach does not respect minimality of change, we refine its stable model semantics and present minimal stable models and strict stable models. We also compare the update approach to related work, and find that is equivalent to a class of inheritance programs independently defined by (1999). Answer set programming (ASP) with disjunction offers a powerful tool for declaratively representing and solving hard problems. Many NP-complete problems can be encoded in the answer set semantics of logic programs in a very concise and intuitive way, where the encoding reflects the typical “guess and check” nature of NP problems: The property is encoded in a way such that polynomial size certificates for it correspond to stable models of a program. However, the problem-solving capacity of full disjunctive logic programs (DLPs) is beyond NP, and captures a class of problems at the second level of the polynomial hierarchy. While these problems also have a clear “guess and check” structure, finding an encoding in a DLP reflecting this structure may sometimes be a non-obvious task, in particular if the “check” itself is a co-NP-complete problem; usually, such problems are solved by interleaving separate guess and check programs, where the check is expressed by inconsistency of the check program. In this paper, we present general transformations of head-cycle free (extended) disjunctive logic programs into stratified and positive (extended) disjunctive logic programs based on meta-interpretation techniques. The answer sets of the original and the transformed program are in simple correspondence, and, moreover, inconsistency of the original program is indicated by a designated answer set of the transformed program. Our transformations facilitate the integration of separate “guess” and “check” programs, which are often easy to obtain, automatically into a single disjunctive logic program. Our results complement recent results on meta-interpretation in ASP, and extend methods and techniques for a declarative “guess and check” problem solving paradigm through ASP. This paper relates the Defeasible Logic Programming (DeLP) framework and its semantics SEMDeLP to classical logic programming frameworks. In DeLP, we distinguish between two different sorts of rules: strict and defeasible rules. Negative literals (∼A) in these rules are considered to represent classical negation. In contrast to this, in normal logic programming (NLP), there is only one kind of rules, but the meaning of negative literals (not A) is different: they represent a kind of negation as failure, and thereby introduce defeasibility. Various semantics have been defined for NLP, notably the well-founded semantics (WFS) (van , Proceedings of the Seventh Symposium on Principles of Database Systems, 1988, pp. 221-230; J. ACM 38 (3) (1991) 620) and the stable semantics Stable (Gelfond and Lifschitz, Fifth Conference on Logic Programming, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1988, pp. 1070-1080; Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on Logical Programming, Jerusalem, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1991, pp. 579-597).In this paper we consider the transformation properties for NLP introduced by Brass and Dix (J. Logic Programming 38(3) (1999) 167) and suitably adjusted for the DeLP framework. We show which transformation properties are satisfied, thereby identifying aspects in which NLP and DeLP differ. We contend that the transformation rules presented in this paper can help to gain a better understanding of the relationship of DeLP semantics with respect to more traditional logic programming approaches. As a byproduct, we obtain the result that DeLP is a proper extension of NLP. Equilibrium logic, introduced by David Pearce, extends the concept of an answer set from logic programs to arbitrary sets of formulas. Logic programs correspond to the special case in which every formula is a “rule” — an implication that has no implications in the antecedent (body) and consequent (head). The semantics of equilibrium logic looks very different from the usual definitions of an answer set in logic programming, as it is based on Kripke models. In this paper we propose a new definition of equilibrium logic which uses the concept of a reduct, as in the standard definition of an answer set. Second, we apply the generalized concept of an answer set to the problem of defining the semantics of aggregates in answer set programming. We propose, in particular, a semantics for weight constraints that covers the problematic case of negative weights. Our semantics of aggregates is an extension of the approach due to Faber, Leone, and Pfeifer to a language with choice rules and, more generally, arbitrary rules with nested expressions. The realization of the Semantic Web vision, in which computational logic has a prominent role, has stimulated a lot of research on combining rules and ontologies, which are formulated in different formalisms. In particular, combining logic programming with the Web Ontology Language (OWL), which is a standard based on description logics, emerged as an important issue for linking the Rules and Ontology Layers of the Semantic Web. Nonmonotonic description logic programs (dl-programs) were introduced for such a combination, in which a pair (L,P) of a description logic knowledge base L and a set of rules P with negation as failure is given a model-based semantics that generalizes the answer set semantics of logic programs. In this article, we reconsider dl-programs and present a well-founded semantics for them as an analog for the other main semantics of logic programs. It generalizes the canonical definition of the well-founded semantics based on unfounded sets, and, as we show, lifts many of the well-known properties from ordinary logic programs to dl-programs. Among these properties, our semantics amounts to a partial model approximating the answer set semantics, which yields for positive and stratified dl-programs, a total model coinciding with the answer set semantics; it has polynomial data complexity provided the access to the description logic knowledge base is polynomial; under suitable restrictions, it has lower complexity and even first-order rewritability is achievable. The results add to previous evidence that dl-programs are a versatile and robust combination approach, which moreover is implementable using legacy engines. The paper proposes a new knowledge representation language, called DLP<, which extends disjunctive logic programming (with strong negation) by inheritance. The addition of inheritance enhances the knowledge modeling features of the language providing a natural representation of default reasoning with exceptions. A declarative model-theoretic semantics of DLP< is provided, which is shown to generalize the Answer Set Semantics of disjunctive logic programs. The knowledge modeling features of the language are illustrated by encoding classical nonmonotonic problems in DLP<. The complexity of DLP< is analyzed, proving that inheritance does not cause any computational overhead, as reasoning in DLP< has exactly the same complexity as reasoning in disjunctive logic programming. This is confirmed by the existence of an efficient translation from DLP< to plain disjunctive logic programming. Using this translation, an advanced KR system supporting the DLP< language has been implemented on top of the DLV system and has subsequently been integrated into DLV. In the context of the Semantic Web, several approaches to the combination of ontologies, given in terms of theories of classical first-order logic, and rule bases have been proposed. They either cast rules into classical logic or limit the interaction between rules and ontologies. Autoepistemic logic (AEL) is an attractive formalismwhich allows to overcome these limitations, by serving as a uniform host language to embed ontologies and nonmonotonic logic programs into it. For the latter, so far only the propositional setting has been considered. In this paper, we present several embeddings of normal and disjunctive non-ground logic programs under the stable-model semantics into first-order AEL, and compare them in combination with classical theories, with respect to stable expansions and autoepistemic consequences. Our results reveal differences and correspondences of the embeddings and provide a useful guidance in the choice of a particular embedding for knowledge combination. The work reported here introduces Defeasible Logic Programming (DeLP), a formalism that combines results of Logic Programming and Defeasible Argumentation. DeLP provides the possibility of representing information in the form of weak rules in a declarative manner, and a defeasible argumentation inference mechanism for warranting the entailed conclusions. In DeLP an argumentation formalism will be used for deciding between contradictory goals. Queries will be supported by arguments that could be defeated by other arguments. A query @math will succeed when there is an argument @math for @math that is warranted, i.e. the argument @math that supports @math is found undefeated by a warrant procedure that implements a dialectical analysis. The defeasible argumentation basis of DeLP allows to build applications that deal with incomplete and contradictory information in dynamic domains. Thus, the resulting approach is suitable for representing agent's knowledge and for providing an argumentation based reasoning mechanism to agents. The addition of preferences to normal logic programs is a convenient way to represent many aspects of default reasoning. If the derivation of an atom A1 is preferred to that of an atom A2, a preference rule can be defined so that A2 is derived only if A1 is not. Although such situations can be modelled directly using default negation, it is often easier to define preference rules than it is to add negation to the bodies of rules. As first noted by [Proc. Internat. Conf. on Logic Programming, 1995, pp. 731-746], for certain grammars, it may be easier to disambiguate parses using preferences than by enforcing disambiguation in the grammar rules themselves. In this paper we define a general fixed-point semantics for preference logic programs based on an embedding into the well-founded semantics, and discuss its features and relation to previous preference logic semantics. We then study how preference logic grammars are used in data standardization, the commercially important process of extracting useful information from poorly structured textual data. This process includes correcting misspellings and truncations that occur in data, extraction of relevant information via parsing, and correcting inconsistencies in the extracted information. The declarativity of Prolog offers natural advantages for data standardization, and a commercial standardizer has been implemented using Prolog. However, we show that the use of preference logic grammars allow construction of a much more powerful and declarative commercial standardizer, and discuss in detail how the use of the non-monotonic construct of preferences leads to improved commercial software. Bottom-up logic programming can be used to declaratively specify many algorithms in a succinct and natural way, and McAllester and Ganzinger have shown that it is possible to define a cost semantics that enables reasoning about the running time of algorithms written as inference rules. Previous work with the programming language Lollimon demonstrates the expressive power of logic programming with linear logic in describing algorithms that have imperative elements or that must repeatedly make mutually exclusive choices. In this paper, we identify a bottom-up logic programming language based on linear logic that is amenable to efficient execution and describe a novel cost semantics that can be used for complexity analysis of algorithms expressed in linear logic. Recently, enabling modularity aspects in Answer Set Programming (ASP) has gained increasing interest to ease the composition of program parts to an overall program. In this paper, we focus on modular nonmonotonic logic programs (MLP) under the answer set semantics, whose modules may have contextually dependent input provided by other modules. Moreover, (mutually) recursive module calls are allowed. We define a model-theoretic semantics for this extended setting, show that many desired properties of ordinary logic programming generalize to our modular ASP, and determine the computational complexity of the new formalism. We investigate the relationship of modular programs to disjunctive logic programs with well-defined input output interface (DLP-functions) and show that they can be embedded into MLPs. Abstract In this paper, we address the issue of how Gelfond and Lifschitz's answer set semantics for extended logic programs can be suitably modified to handle prioritized programs. In such programs an ordering on the program rules is used to express preferences. We show how this ordering can be used to define preferred answer sets and thus to increase the set of consequences of a program. We define a strong and a weak notion of preferred answer sets. The first takes preferences more seriously, while the second guarantees the existence of a preferred answer set for programs possessing at least one answer set. Adding priorities to rules is not new, and has been explored in different contexts. However, we show that many approaches to priority handling, most of which are inherited from closely related formalisms like default logic, are not suitable and fail on intuitive examples. Our approach, which obeys abstract, general principles that any approach to prioritized knowledge representation should satisfy, handles them in the expected way. Moreover, we investigate the complexity of our approach. It appears that strong preference on answer sets does not add on the complexity of the principal reasoning tasks, and weak preference leads only to a mild increase in complexity. A novel logic program like language, weight constraint rules, is developed for answer set programming purposes. It generalizes normal logic programs by allowing weight constraints in place of literals to represent, e.g., cardinality and resource constraints and by providing optimization capabilities. A declarative semantics is developed which extends the stable model semantics of normal programs. The computational complexity of the language is shown to be similar to that of normal programs under the stable model semantics. A simple embedding of general weight constraint rules to a small subclass of the language called basic constraint rules is devised. An implementation of the language, the SMODELS system, is developed based on this embedding. It uses a two level architecture consisting of a front-end and a kernel language implementation. The front-end allows restricted use of variables and functions and compiles general weight constraint rules to basic constraint rules. A major part of the work is the development of an efficient search procedure for computing stable models for this kernel language. The procedure is compared with and empirically tested against satisfiability checkers and an implementation of the stable model semantics. It offers a competitive implementation of the stable model semantics for normal programs and attractive performance for problems where the new types of rules provide a compact representation.