  This paper presents a study of operational and type-theoretic properties of
different resolution strategies in Horn clause logic. We distinguish four
different kinds of resolution: resolution by unification (SLD-resolution),
resolution by term-matching, the recently introduced structural resolution, and
partial (or lazy) resolution. We express them all uniformly as abstract
reduction systems, which allows us to undertake a thorough comparative analysis
of their properties. To match this small-step semantics, we propose to take
Howard's System H as a type-theoretic semantic counterpart. Using System H, we
interpret Horn formulas as types, and a derivation for a given formula as the
proof term inhabiting the type given by the formula. We prove soundness of
these abstract reduction systems relative to System H, and we show completeness
of SLD-resolution and structural resolution relative to System H. We identify
conditions under which structural resolution is operationally equivalent to
SLD-resolution. We show correspondence between term-matching resolution for
Horn clause programs without existential variables and term rewriting.
