E. Borger and B. Demoen. A framework to specify database update views for Prolog. In M. J. Maluszynski, editor, PLILP'91. Third International Symposium on Programming Languages Implementation and Logic Programming, volume 528 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 147-- 158. Springer, 1991.  Home/Search   Document Not in Database   Summary   Related Articles   Check

....of this abstract function procdef. If one considers Prolog without program modifying operations like assert, retract, then procdef is a static oracle function. If one wants to model also Prolog s program modification features then procdef becomes a dynamic and internally updatable function (see [15, 25]) Through the refinement process by which the Prolog model of [26] is linked in a provably correct way to the WAM implementation model in [27] procdef receives an explicit definition. unify is supposed in [7, 8, 26] to provide for each pair of literals either a unifying substitution or the ....

....it does it in the most abstract form one can conceive. By supporting such abstract operational views evolving algebras allow one to deal in an explicit and transparent way with non trivial run time properties. For example the analysis of the dynamic properties of Prolog database operations in [15, 25] is based upon a simple but precise model of the backtracking behaviour of Prolog for user defined predicates which abstracts away from irrelevant features by working with abstract interfaces for terms, goals, clauses, procedure definitions, substitution and unification. Whereas the analysis in ....

[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]

E. Borger and B. Demoen. A framework to specify database update views for Prolog. In M. J. Maluszynski, editor, PLILP'91. Springer LNCS 528, 1991, 147-- 158.

....model the role of a well defined whole. If we consider Prolog without operations like assert, retract which modify the program, then procdef is a static external function. If we want to model also Prolog s program modification features then procdef becomes an internal dynamic function (see [7, 14]) Note that during the refinement process by which the Prolog model of [15] is linked in a provably correct way to the WAM implementation model in [16] the function procdef receives an explicit definition. The function unify is supposed in [15] to provide for each pair of literals either a ....

E. Borger and B. Demoen. A framework to specify database update views for Prolog. In M. J. Maluszynski, editor, PLILP'91. Third International Symposium on Programming Languages Implementation and Logic Programming, volume 528 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 147-- 158. Springer, 1991.

.... [Borger,Riccobene 93, Borger,Riccobene 92] ffl object oriented extension of Prolog [Muller 93] It has also provided a framework for identifying and clarifying disputable language features and related implementation issues, such as the problem of semantics of dynamic database operations [Borger,Demoen 91, Borger,Rosenzweig 91b] and solution collecting predicates [Borger,Rosenzweig 93] We view the model as a primary direct formalization of the basic intuitions, concepts and operations of the language, as understood by its practitioners and implementors. This is not to say that we would accept ....

....affect only subsequent calls, but the alternatives for current call remain as they were at time of call, by being copied into the tree structure by the appropriate call rule. The logical view is the one adopted in the draft standard proposal for an analysis of alternative possibilities see [Borger,Demoen 91, Borger,Rosenzweig 91b] Here it will have to suffice to say that the following program q : Gamma assertz (q) fail: r : Gamma retract(r; X) fail: r: differentiates between different views, and unfolds the related difficulties [Borger,Rosenzweig 91b] Under the logical view q fails while r ....

E.Borger, B.Demoen, A framework to specify database update views for Prolog. In: J.Maluszynski, M.Wirsing (Eds.), Programming Language Implementation and Logic Programming, Springer LNCS 528, 147-158

....chosen point of computation is always finite. One of the main arguments to use dynamic algebras is their simplicity: they are comprehensible, precise and universally applicable. Dynamic algebras have already been applied to give a semantics of several programming languages, especially Prolog, see [Bor90a, Bor90b, Bor90c, BD91]. A Dynamic Algebra is a tuple ( Sigma; I; F; T ) consisting of a signature Sigma , a finite, many sorted, partial algebra I of signature Sigma (initial state) a finite set F of finite, many sorted, partial algebras (final states) and a finite set T of transition rules. We will use the ....

....( c ) U 2 ) c ) U 3 ) a ) true) This tree is a minimal tree and is produced by our algorithm. 5 Conclusions Dynamic algebras are a valuable tool of specification. Dynamic algebras have been used to define operational semantics of several programming languages, especially Prolog, see [Bor90a, Bor90b, Bor90c, BD91]. The cited publications have already been used by the ISO commitee for the Prolog standardization process. In order to make dynamic algebra specifications executable, we have defined and implemented the language DASL. DASL is an extension of the dynamic algebras formalism. It includes polymorphic ....

E. Borger and B. Demoen. A Framework to Specify Database Update Views for Prolog. In J. Maluszy'nski and M. Wirsing, editors, Programming Language Implementation and Logic Programming (PLILP), number 528, 1991.

.... Church s thesis (see [21] 22] has since been shown to apply as formal specification method for real programming languages like Modula2 [23] Smalltalk [3] Occam [24] Standard (Sequential) Prolog ( 4] 5] 6] 12] Prolog III [14] an object oriented data base language [18] In [13] and [7] it has allowed a systematic analysis of Prolog database views and their implementation. In [10] and [11] a series of Evolving Algebras extensions, starting from the Prolog algebras of [5] and proved to be correct w.r.t. the latter, has been developed which yields an entirely mathematical but ....

E.Borger & B.Demoen, 1991, A Framework to specify Database Update Views for Prolog, PLILP'91 3rd International Symposium on Programming Languages Implementation and Logic Programming (Eds. J.Maluszynski & M.Wirsing), Springer LNCS 528, pp. 147-158.

....Science, pages 274 308. Springer Verlag, Berlin, 1993. 6] Yuri Gurevich and James K. Huggins. Evolving Algebras and Partial Evaluation. In 96 B. Pehrson and I. Simon, editors, IFIP 1994 World Computer Congress, volume I: Technology and Foundations, pages 587 592. Elsevier, Amsterdam, 1994. [7] Yuri Gurevich and James K. Huggins. Equivalence is in the eye of the beholder. Uni 102 versity of Michigan EECS Department Technical Report is coming, to be submitted to Theoretical Computer Science, 1995. 8] Egon Borger, Yuri Gurevich, and Dean Rosenzweig. The Bakery Algorithm: Yet 116 ....

....a 2 process algorithm and an N process algorithm by temporal formulas and proves the equivalence of the two formulas. We analyze in what sense the two algorithms are and are not equivalent, and give a more direct equivalence proof. 1 Introduction In Processes are in the Eye of the Beholder [7], Leslie Lamport writes: A concurrent algorithm is traditionally represented as the composition of processes. We show by an example that processes are an artifact of how an algorithm is represented. The difference between a two process representation and a four process representation of the same ....

[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]

E. Borger and B. Demoen. A framework to specify database update views for Prolog. In M. J. Maluszynski, editor, PLILP'91. Third International Symposium on Programming Languages Implementation and Logic Programming, volume 528 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 147-- 158. Springer, 1991.

Online articles have much greater impact   More about CiteSeer.IST   Add search form to your site   Submit documents   Feedback  

CiteSeer.IST - Copyright Penn State and NEC