Technological progress in Answer Set Programming (ASP) has been stimulated by the use of common standards, such as the ASP-Core-2 language. While ASP has its roots in nonmonotonic reasoning, efforts have also been made to reconcile ASP with classical first-order (FO) logic. This has resulted in the development of FO(·), an expressive extension of FO, which allows ASP-like problem solving in a purely classical setting. This language may be more accessible to domain experts already familiar with FO and may be easier to combine with other formalisms that are based on classical logic. It is supported by the IDP inference system, which has successfully competed in a number of ASP competitions. Here, however, technological progress has been hampered by the limited number of systems that are available for FO(·). In this paper, we aim to address this gap by means of a translation tool that transforms an FO(·) specification into ASP-Core-2, thereby allowing ASP-Core-2 solvers to be used as solvers for FO(·) as well. We present experimental results to show that the resulting combination of our translation with an off-the-shelf ASP solver is competitive with the IDP system as a way of solving problems formulated in FO(·).

Thom Frühwirth presented a short, elegant, and efficient Prolog program for the n queens problem. However, the program may be seen as rather tricky and one may not be convinced about its correctness. This paper explains the program in a declarative way and provides proofs of its correctness and completeness. The specification and the proofs are declarative, that is they abstract from any operational semantics. The specification is approximate, it is unnecessary to describe the program’s semantics exactly. Despite the program works on non-ground terms, this work employs the standard semantics, based on logical consequence and Herbrand interpretations. Another purpose of the paper is to present an example of precise declarative reasoning about the semantics of a logic program.

This paper investigates how high school students in an introductory computer science (CS) course approach computing in the logic programming (LP) paradigm. This qualitative study shows how novice students operate within the LP paradigm while engaging in foundational computing concepts and skills: students are engaged in a cyclical process of abstraction, reasoning, and creating representations of their ideas in code while also being informed by the (procedural) requirements and the revision/debugging process. As these computing concepts and skills are also expected in traditional approaches to introductory K-12 CS courses, this paper asserts that LP is a viable paradigm choice for high school novices.

Constraint Handling Rules (CHR) is both an effective concurrent declarative programming language and a versatile computational logic formalism. In CHR, guarded reactive rules rewrite a multi-set of constraints. Concurrency is inherent, since rules can be applied to the constraints in parallel. In this comprehensive survey, we give an overview of the concurrent, parallel as well as distributed CHR semantics, standard and more exotic, that have been proposed over the years at various levels of refinement. These semantics range from the abstract to the concrete. They are related by formal soundness results. Their correctness is proven as a correspondence between parallel and sequential computations. On the more practical side, we present common concise example CHR programs that have been widely used in experiments and benchmarks. We review parallel and distributed CHR implementations in software as well as hardware. The experimental results obtained show a parallel speed-up for unmodified sequential CHR programs. The software implementations are available online for free download and we give the web links. Due to its high level of abstraction, the CHR formalism can also be used to implement and analyse models for concurrency. To this end, the Software Transaction Model, the Actor Model, Colored Petri Nets and the Join-Calculus have been faithfully encoded in CHR. Finally, we identify and discuss commonalities of the approaches surveyed and indicate what problems are left open for future research.

This paper presents an example of formal reasoning about the semantics of a Prolog program of practical importance (the SAT solver of Howe and King). The program is treated as a definite clause logic program with added control. The logic program is constructed by means of stepwise refinement, hand in hand with its correctness and completeness proofs. The proofs are declarative – they do not refer to any operational semantics. Each step of the logic program construction follows a systematic approach to constructing programs which are provably correct and complete. We also prove that correctness and completeness of the logic program is preserved in the final Prolog program. Additionally, we prove termination, occur-check freedom and non-floundering.

Our example shows how dealing with “logic” and with “control” can be separated. Most of the proofs can be done at the “logic” level, abstracting from any operational semantics.

The example employs approximate specifications; they are crucial in simplifying reasoning about logic programs. It also shows that the paradigm of semantics-preserving program transformations may be not sufficient. We suggest considering transformations which preserve correctness and completeness with respect to an approximate specification.

We advocate a declarative approach to proving properties of logic programs. Total correctness can be separated into correctness, completeness and clean termination; the latter includes non-floundering. Only clean termination depends on the operational semantics, in particular on the selection rule. We show how to deal with correctness and completeness in a declarative way, treating programs only from the logical point of view. Specifications used in this approach are interpretations (or theories). We point out that specifications for correctness may differ from those for completeness, as usually there are answers which are neither considered erroneous nor required to be computed. We present proof methods for correctness and completeness for definite programs and generalize them to normal programs. For normal programs we use the 3-valued completion semantics; this is a standard semantics corresponding to negation as finite failure. The proof methods employ solely the classical 2-valued logic. We use a 2-valued characterization of the 3-valued completion semantics, which may be of separate interest. The method of proving correctness of definite programs is not new and can be traced back to the work of clark in 1979. However a more complicated approach using operational semantics was proposed by some authors. We show that it is not stronger than the declarative one, as far as properties of program answers are concerned. For a corresponding operational approach to normal programs, we show that it is (strictly) weaker than our method. We also employ the ideas of this work to generalize a known method of proving termination of normal programs.