Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
S. Abiteboul, S. Grumbach (1988)
COL: A Logic-Based Language for Complex Objects
J. Ullman, A. Gelder (1986)
Parallel complexity of logical query programsAlgorithmica, 3
F. Bancilhon, S. Khoshafian (1985)
A calculus for complex objectsJ. Comput. Syst. Sci., 38
O. Shmueli, S. Tsur, C. Zaniolo (1988)
Rewriting of rules containing set terms in a logic data language LDL
R. Hull, Jianwen Su (1989)
Untyped sets, invention, and computable queries
(1991)
On decomposing chain datalog programs into P (left-)linear sequences of chain rules
(1987)
COL: A language for complex objects based on recursive rules
S. Naqvi, S. Tsur (1989)
A Logical Language for Data and Knowledge Bases
J. Lloyd (1987)
Foundations of logic programming; (2nd extended ed.)
C. Beeri, S. Naqvi, R. Ramakrishnan, O. Shmueli, S. Tsur (1987)
Sets and negation in a logic data base language (LDL1)
J. Lloyd (1984)
Foundations of Logic Programming
R. Moll, M. Arbib, A. Kfoury (1988)
An Introduction to Formal Language Theory
G. Kuper (1988)
On the expressive power of logic programming languages with sets
(1989)
UnWPO d sets, inventions, and computable queries, a preliminary version of the paper appeared in
G. Kuper (1987)
Logic programming with setsJ. Comput. Syst. Sci., 41
LDL is one of the recently proposed logical query languages, which incorporate set, for data and knowledge base systems. Since LDL programs can simulate negation, they are not monotonic in general. On the other hand, there are monotonic LDL programs. This paper addresses the natural question of “When are the generally nonmonotonic LDL programs monotonic?” and investigates related topics such as useful applications for monotonicity. We discuss four kinds of monotonicity, and examine two of them in depth. The first of the two, called “ω-monotonicity”, is shown to be undecidable even when limited to single-stratum programs. The second, called “uniform monotonicity”, is shown to implyω-monotonicity. We characterize the uniform monotonicity of a program (i) by a relationship between its Bancilhon-Khoshafian semantics and its LDL semantics, and (ii) with a useful property called subset completion independence. Characterization (ii) implies that uniformly monotonie programs can be evaluated more efficiently by discarding dominated facts. Finally, we provide some necessary and/or sufficient, syntactic conditions for uniform monotonicity. The conditions pinpoint (a) enumerated set terms, (b) negations of membership and inclusion, and (c) sharing of set terms as the main source for nonuniform monotonicity.
Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence – Springer Journals
Published: Apr 5, 2005
Read and print from thousands of top scholarly journals.
Already have an account? Log in
Bookmark this article. You can see your Bookmarks on your DeepDyve Library.
To save an article, log in first, or sign up for a DeepDyve account if you don’t already have one.
Copy and paste the desired citation format or use the link below to download a file formatted for EndNote
Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
All DeepDyve websites use cookies to improve your online experience. They were placed on your computer when you launched this website. You can change your cookie settings through your browser.