Historical Review of Variants of Informal Semantics for Logic Programs under Answer Set Semantics: GL'88, GL'91, GK'14, D-V'12

Overview

• This paper provides a historical review of different variants of informal semantics for logic programs under answer set semantics, including the GL'88, GL'91, GK'14, and D-V'12 approaches.

Plain English Explanation

This paper looks at how researchers have tried to explain the meaning of logic programs in a more intuitive, informal way, rather than just using formal mathematical definitions. Logic programs are a way of representing and reasoning about information using rules and facts. The answer set semantics is a particular way of interpreting the meaning of these programs.

Over the years, researchers have proposed different approaches to providing a more natural, easier-to-understand explanation of how answer set semantics works. The paper covers four key variants of these informal semantics: GL'88, GL'91, GK'14, and D-V'12. Each of these tries to capture the core ideas behind answer set semantics in a more accessible, plain-language way.

Technical Explanation

The paper examines four different proposals for providing an informal, intuitive semantics for logic programs under the answer set semantics:

1. GL'88: This approach, proposed by Gelfond and Lifschitz in 1988, introduces the idea of a "generating rule" to informally explain how answer sets are derived from a logic program.

2. GL'91: Building on their earlier work, Gelfond and Lifschitz refined the GL'88 semantics in 1991, providing a more detailed informal explanation of how answer sets are constructed.

3. GK'14: More recently, Gebser and Kaminski proposed an alternative informal semantics in 2014, focusing on the concept of "justified" and "unjustified" beliefs to explain answer set semantics.

4. D-V'12: Also in 2012, Denecker and Vennekens introduced a "justified" semantics, which aims to provide a more intuitive interpretation of the meaning of logic programs.

The paper compares and contrasts these different informal semantics, examining how they each try to capture the essence of answer set semantics in a more accessible way for users and practitioners.

Critical Analysis

The paper acknowledges that providing an informal, plain-language semantics for logic programs is a challenging task, as the formal mathematical definitions can be quite complex. While each of the proposed approaches has its merits, the authors note that there is still room for improvement in terms of developing even more intuitive and accessible explanations.

One potential limitation is that the informal semantics may not always perfectly align with the formal, mathematical definitions, potentially leading to confusion or misunderstandings. Additionally, the paper suggests that further research is needed to explore how these informal semantics can be applied and integrated into practical logic programming tools and systems.

Conclusion

This paper provides a valuable historical review of different attempts to create more user-friendly, intuitive explanations of the semantics of logic programs under the answer set approach. By examining the strengths and limitations of these various informal semantics, the authors hope to inform and inspire future research in this area, ultimately making logic programming more accessible to a wider range of users and applications.