A. Brogi, P. Mancarella, D. Pedreschi, and F. Turini. Modular logic programming. ACM TOPLAS, 16(4):1361--1398, July 1994.  Home/Search   Document Details and Download   Summary   Related Articles   Check

....and thus can be used in a similar way as coupling modes in HiPAC. e.g. integrity maintenance may be deferred until EOT by declaring the corresponding rules final. The idea to structure rule sets using procedures or modules has already been introduced in the area of logic programming. e.g. BMPT94, BT94] develop a modular design for logic programs including union, intersection, and encapsulation. However, they do not deal with active rules and state change, so their concept does not cover sequential composition, transactions etc. FT96] proposes Extended ECA rules as a common framework ....

A. Brogi, P. Mancarella, D. Pedreschi, and F. Turini. Modular logic programming. ACM TOPLAS, 16(4):1361--1398, July 1994.

....Another possibility is to characterise the minimal iso closures, as we will see in Section 6. 5. 3 Compositionality Parametrised theories can be used for composing small well de ned theories into new larger theories [10] Similarly, parametrised programs 6 can be used (and composed) as modules [4, 5]. In this section, we study only the consequences of initial and isoinitial semantics for composition. In general, a parametrised theory O 1 leaves open the intended meaning of its parameters and, possibly, the intended domain. O 1 can be used to produce a larger, composite theory, by composing ....

....in a uniform manner with respect to both closed and open programs. Moreover, constructive formal systems can help to formally prove isoinitiality and treat composition of iso parametric theories [15] Future work here will include a comparison with other semantics for modularity (e.g. [4, 5]) and compositionality (e.g. 3, 13] Clearly such a uniform semantics is important if logic programming is to be used for large scale software development. We have already used isoinitial semantics in our work in formal program development (e.g. 10] Finally, a brief comment on de nite and ....

A. Brogi, P. Mancarella, D. Pedreschi and F. Turini. Modular logic programming. ACM TOPLAS 16(4):1361-1398, 1994.

....to be completed by adding new axioms and, possibly, new symbols to the signature. Open theories are needed if we want to compose small well defined theories to build new larger theories [7, 6] In the case of programs, open programs are needed if we want to use and compose them as modules [3, 4]. In this paper, we do not treat the problem of theory or program composition. Rather, we study only the consequences of initial and isoinitial semantics in open theories and programs. Dealing with open theories, we have to consider different signatures. A signature Sigma j hF; Ri is a ....

A. Brogi, P. Mancarella, D. Pedreschi and F. Turini. Modular logic programming. ACM TOPLAS 16(4):1361--1398, 1994.

....of nowadays applications has made modularity analysis a task of primary importance from the practical side as well. At the present moment, the field of modular analysis consists of several results that study the modularity of a particular property for a certain specific paradigm (see e.g. [12, 4, 27, 1, 19, 13, 8, 22, 10, 24]) However, there is no general theory on modular analysis. In this paper, we introduce such a theory. Given the property to be verified, and the composition operator that builds complex objects from smaller submodules, we analyze the corresponding modularity space, that is to say the collection ....

....are studied. Again, via a v basis we can obtain precise information on what kind of multimodular behaviour a certain property satisfies. Currently, we are investigating practical applications of the theory to the study of modularity for other paradigms, like functional or logic programming (cf. [4]) Note that even in the rewriting field there are still many other modularity topics to which the theory of vaccines can be applied, including e.g. more involved combinations of TRSs (like composable ones, cf. 22] for a survey) higher order rewriting in its various forms (see e.g. 12, 11] ....

A. Brogi, P. Mancarella, D. Pedreschi, and F. Turini. Modular logic programming. ACM TOPLAS, 16(4), 1994.

....meta programming. Essentially, meta programming is a technique that allows to treat programs as data. When applying meta programming, one is able to define various modifications of the way a program is processed. It is suitable for implementing different ways of communications of logic databases (Brogi et al. 1994). Some aspects of the logic program processing machine, not visible at the level of a standard logic program, can be made visible and accessible as first class objects (Cavalieri et al. 1989) A straightforward usual way of using meta programming in logic is based on defining a metainterpreter ....

.... (Sterling and Beer, 1989) Often, the chosen level of detail is the goal reduction level, with the program being represented at the meta level by a predicate clause 2, where the first parameter is a clause head, and the second parameter is a clause body (Huntbach, 1989; Lamma et al. 1991; Brogi et al. 1994; Denti et al. 1993) However, it is possible to define meta interpreters with a finer level of granularity, for instance one modelling also backtrack, or one explicitly implementing unification. An alternative approach is to allow direct access to some specific parts of the abstract program ....

[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]

Brogi A., Mancarella P., Pedreschi D. and Turini F. (1994): Modular logic programming. --- ACM Trans.

....these problems one would have to use this indirect semantics for all programs, including the logical ones which is awkward and artificial. It is useful to remark that semantics of programs that takes into account modularity is important both for program construction (see e.g. Brogi and Turini [BMPT94]) and for program verification (see e.g. Apt and Pedreschi [AP94] The program ISO of Section 1. suggests that one might get rid of meta variables by unfolding. Indeed, by unfolding in ISO the call to the ; relation we end up with a program without meta variables. Unfortunately, this approach ....

A. Brogi, P. Mancarella, D. Pedreschi, and F. Turini. Modular logic programming. ACM Toplas, 16(4):1361--1398, 1994.

....In logic programming, an in depth survey of modularity can be found in [5] There are broadly two main approaches: one based on an algebra for logic program composition, and one based on extensions of Horn logic. The first approach is exemplified by Brogi, Mancarella, Pedreschi and Turini [4]. Here composition operators and their semantics are defined for composing programs. Compositional semantics is based on the immediate consequence operator, although in other papers (e.g. 3] a compositional model theoretic semantics is used. The second approach is exemplified by Miller [27] who ....

A. Brogi, P. Mancarella, D. Pedreschi and F. Turini. Modular logic programming. ACM TOPLAS 16(4):1361-1398, 1994.

....is different from that used in object oriented logic programming (see e.g. 11, 15] where the conventional object oriented notions are imported virtually wholesale at the syntactic level. Our characterisation of modularity and reusability also differs from modular logic programming (see e.g. [2, 4]) where composition is not performed in the context of a framework and a notion of correct reusability is missing. The paper is organised as follows. In Section 2, we introduce the background theory together with our notation and terminology. In Section 3 we investigate classes and inheritance ....

A. Brogi, P. Mancarella, D. Pedreschi and F. Turini. Modular logic programming. ACM TOPLAS 16(4):1361-1398, 1994.

....the conventional notions of object oriented programming are imported virtually wholesale, at the syntactic level. Our characterisation of modularity and reusability is not only different from that in conventional object oriented programming, but also from that in modular logic programming, e.g. [2, 4]. In the latter, composition is not performed in the context of a framework, and there is no notion of parametric correctness corresponding to steadfastness. Consequently, the notion of correct reusability is also missing there. However, our work is only in its initial stage, and much more remains ....

A. Brogi, P. Mancarella, D. Pedreschi and F. Turini. Modular logic programming. ACM TOPLAS 16(4):1361-1398, 1994.

....it is necessary to view modules very abstractly as (logical) theories. It follows that declarative paradigms such as logic programming are well equipped to provide such an abstract semantics of modules, and to some extent, logic programming has succeeded in promulgating this approach (see e.g. [8, 2]) On the other hand, in our view, other approaches in logic programming which define modules as pieces of in line subtext of a program will always run into difficulty when it comes to reasoning about composition and correctness (see [4] for a survey on modularity in logic programming) In this ....

A. Brogi, P. Mancarella, D. Pedreschi and F. Turini. Modular logic programming. ACM TOPLAS 16(4):1361-1398, 1994.

No context found.

A. Brogi, P. Mancarella, D. Pedreschi and F. Turini. Modular logic programming. ACM TOPLAS 16(4):1361-1398, 1994.

No context found.

Brogi, A., Mancarella, P., Pedreschi, D., amd Tutini, F. 1994a. "Modular Logic Programming ", ACM Trans. on Programming Languages and Systems, Vol. 16, No. 4, pp.1361-1398.

No context found.

A. Brogi, P. Mancarella, D. Pedreschi and F. Turini. Modular logic programming. ACM TOPLAS 16(4):1361-1398, 1994.

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