Large logic programs are normally designed by teams of individuals, each of whom designs a subprogram. While each of these subprograms may have consistent completions, the logic program obtained by taking the union of these subprograms may not. However, the resulting program still serves a useful purpose, for a (possibly) very large subset of it still has a consistent completion. We argue that “small” inconsistencies may cause a logic program to have no models (in the traditional sense), even though it still serves some useful purpose. A semantics is developed in this paper for general logic programs which ascribes a very reasonable meaning to general logic programs irrespective of whether they have consistent (in the classical logic sense) completions.
Verification of Java Bytecode Using Analysis and Transformation of Logic Programs
