@inproceedings{GeskeGoltz2010,
  author    = {Geske, Ulrich and Goltz, Hans-Joachim},
  title     = {Efficiency of difference-list programming},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus-41563},
  year      = {2010},
  abstract  = {The difference-list technique is described in literature as effective method for extending lists to the right without using calls of append/3. There exist some proposals for automatic transformation of list programs into differencelist programs. However, we are interested in construction of difference-list programs by the programmer, avoiding the need of a transformation step. In [GG09] it was demonstrated, how left-recursive procedures with a dangling call of append/3 can be transformed into right-recursion using the unfolding technique. For simplification of writing difference-list programs using a new cons/2 procedure was introduced. In the present paper, we investigate how efficieny is influenced using cons/2. We measure the efficiency of procedures using accumulator technique, cons/2, DCG's, and difference lists and compute the resulting speedup in respect to the simple procedure definition using append/3. Four Prolog systems were investigated and we found different behaviour concerning the speedup by difference lists. A result of our investigations is, that an often advice given in the literature for avoiding calls append/3 could not be confirmed in this strong formulation.},
  language  = {en}
}
@inproceedings{HerreHummel2010,
  author    = {Herre, Heinrich and Hummel, Axel},
  title     = {A paraconsistent semantics for generalized logic programs},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus-41496},
  year      = {2010},
  abstract  = {We propose a paraconsistent declarative semantics of possibly inconsistent generalized logic programs which allows for arbitrary formulas in the body and in the head of a rule (i.e. does not depend on the presence of any specific connective, such as negation(-as-failure), nor on any specific syntax of rules). For consistent generalized logic programs this semantics coincides with the stable generated models introduced in [HW97], and for normal logic programs it yields the stable models in the sense of [GL88].},
  language  = {en}
}
@inproceedings{Seipel2010,
  author    = {Seipel, Dietmar},
  title     = {Practical Applications of Extended Deductive Databases in DATALOG*},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus-41457},
  year      = {2010},
  abstract  = {A wide range of additional forward chaining applications could be realized with deductive databases, if their rule formalism, their immediate consequence operator, and their fixpoint iteration process would be more flexible. Deductive databases normally represent knowledge using stratified Datalog programs with default negation. But many practical applications of forward chaining require an extensible set of user-defined built-in predicates. Moreover, they often need function symbols for building complex data structures, and the stratified fixpoint iteration has to be extended by aggregation operations. We present an new language Datalog*, which extends Datalog by stratified meta-predicates (including default negation), function symbols, and user-defined built-in predicates, which are implemented and evaluated top-down in Prolog. All predicates are subject to the same backtracking mechanism. The bottom-up fixpoint iteration can aggregate the derived facts after each iteration based on user-defined Prolog predicates.},
  language  = {en}
}
@inproceedings{Brass2010,
  author    = {Brass, Stefan},
  title     = {Range restriction for general formulas},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus-41521},
  year      = {2010},
  abstract  = {Deductive databases need general formulas in rule bodies, not only conjuctions of literals. This is well known since the work of Lloyd and Topor about extended logic programming. Of course, formulas must be restricted in such a way that they can be effectively evaluated in finite time, and produce only a finite number of new tuples (in each iteration of the TP-operator: the fixpoint can still be infinite). It is also necessary to respect binding restrictions of built-in predicates: many of these predicates can be executed only when certain arguments are ground. Whereas for standard logic programming rules, questions of safety, allowedness, and range-restriction are relatively easy and well understood, the situation for general formulas is a bit more complicated. We give a syntactic analysis of formulas that guarantees the necessary properties.},
  language  = {en}
}