Paper detail

Generalizing Modular Logic Programs

Even though modularity has been studied extensively in conventional logic programming, there are few approaches on how to incorporate modularity into Answer Set Programming, a prominent rule-based declarative programming paradigm. A major approach is Oikarinnen and Janhunen's Gaifman-Shapiro-style architecture of program modules, which provides the composition of program modules. Their module theorem properly strengthens Lifschitz and Turner's splitting set theorem for normal logic programs. However, this approach is limited by module conditions that are imposed in order to ensure the compatibility of their module system with the stable model semantics, namely forcing output signatures of composing modules to be disjoint and disallowing positive cyclic dependencies between different modules. These conditions turn out to be too restrictive in practice and in this paper we discuss alternative ways of lift both restrictions independently, effectively solving the first, widening the applicability of this framework and the scope of the module theorem.

preprint2014arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access2 authors2 topics

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.