A. Brogi and P. Ciancarini. The concurrent language shared prolog. ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems, 13(1):99--123, 1991.  Home/Search   Document Not in Database   Summary   Related Articles   Check

....other words, when an agent produces some data as output, it does not have to know which agent will take them as input, or if the data will eventually be taken. The tuple space paradigm inspired the design of languages like: Linda [38, 40] Swarm [109] LO [13] Gamma [24, 25] Tao [102, 101] SP [31], ESP [34] PoliS [46] Pat e [12] and eta [4, 6] They are also called coordination languages. The combination of associative access and uncoupling results in a very high expressive power when describing coordination properties of different cooperating entities. In almost all of them (Swarm, ....

....fired by the specified configurations of the tuple space, respectively) can be uniformly described by the same formalism. 2. 2 Shared Prolog In Shared Prolog (SP) a tuple is a logical atom (fact) and the interaction between the tuple space and the agents is controlled by the unification algorithm [31]. The tuple space is also called blackboard. A system is made of a tuple space that contains atomic facts. The tuple space is associated with a set of agents, and each agent executes a theory. A theory contains a set of rules expressing read and write operations on the tuple space, and a ....

A. Brogi and P. Ciancarini. The Concurrent Language Shared Prolog. ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems, 13(1):99--123, 1991.

....to the messages on the blackboard, and the methods which retract and assert resources correspond to different knowledge sources in the blackboard model. There are a number of parallel languages which are based on a similar concept, such as Associons [19] Gamma [6] Linda [13] Shared Prolog [8], and Swarm [11] Actually both Associons and Gamma are abstract computing models more than full fledged programming languages: they are based on multiset rewriting operators. Linda is a coordination language, i.e. a set of primitives for parallelism and communication that can be easily added to ....

A. Brogi and P. Ciancarini. The concurrent language shared prolog. ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems, 13(1):99--123, 1991.

.... a sequential computation (although the use of lambda terms instead of first order terms, and the fact that clauses may be dynamically loaded in the proof, make things more complex than in the classical case) On the other hand, in a parallel environment, it has been shown in [3, 4, 6] and also in [27, 14, 11], that the formalism of multi headed formulae (e.g. methods here) is better suited, especially for synchronization purposes. Contextual Horn clauses [27] or the logical objects of [14] or Shared Prolog [11] basically correspond to the fragment of LinLog 4 In fact, further refinements would be ....

....other hand, in a parallel environment, it has been shown in [3, 4, 6] and also in [27, 14, 11] that the formalism of multi headed formulae (e.g. methods here) is better suited, especially for synchronization purposes. Contextual Horn clauses [27] or the logical objects of [14] or Shared Prolog [11], basically correspond to the fragment of LinLog 4 In fact, further refinements would be needed to account for the fact that Progression can only be triggered when the context C is flat, and also for the fact that the head of a method may match atoms prefixed with the modality , which are not ....

A. Brogi and P. Ciancarini. The concurrent language shared prolog. ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems, 13(1):99--123, 1991.

....of blackboard based communication [10] in terms of local consumption. Proposals for a more local form of blackboard based communication were also presented in [19] in a non logical setting, sharing our same intent of making use of blackboards in the context of object oriented programming. [7] provides instead a logical version of blackboard based communication in its standard global interpretation. LO can also be seen as an instance of Concurrent Constraint Programming [25] the programming paradigm towards which the concurrent branch of logic programming languages is naturally ....

A. Brogi and P. Ciancarini. The concurrent language shared prolog. ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems, 13(1):99--123, 1991.

....gent systems, by presenting some exa mples of LuCe coordina ed systems. 2 Coordinat ion in LuCe Thea doption of Prolog for inter aN nt communica tion ha s been a rea y successfully experimented, pa rticula rly in the context of tuple ba sed coordina tion models [15] sucha sSha red Prolog [1], ESP [2] Linda Intera ctor [23] a nd ACLT [16] The LuCe communica tion la nguaN , too, is ba ed on first order logic:a tuple isa Prolog groundfa t,a ny unita ry Prolog cl a se is a a missible tuple templa te,a nd unifica tion is the tuple ma tching mecha nism [15] Wha is new in LuCe is ....

....specifica tion of the beha viour of the reversi tuple centre, exploited herea s the core of the Reversi system. We encoura ge the interested rea der to check the two systemsa t [7] where the LuCe system isa lso freelya va ila ble. 4 Conclusions Severa l resea rch proposa ls cited in the pa per [22, 1, 2]a lrea dy exploited logic la ngua3 s for the coordina ion of multi aC nt systems. The m a n origina l contribution of LuCe is the notion of logic tuple centrea s the core for the coordina tion of Interneta gents,a nd the corresponding technology for the development, Figure 1. GUI agents for ....

A. Brogi and P. Ciancarini. The concurrent language, Shared Prolog. ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems, 13(1), January 1991.

....is vital for reuse in the development of non trivial language processors. Let us finally illustrate how meta programming helps in the development of Laptob itself. To perform type checking, interaction with external scanners, modular composition based on a compilation based semantics [7] etc. program analyses and program transformations have to be performed. The following trivial analysis traverses an object program to accumulate all keywords: keywords(Ts,Kws) reduce(keyword, union,Ts,Kws) keyword( S, S] ground(S) The analysis keywords(Ts,Ss) extracts all keywords ....

A. Brogi, P. Mancarella, D. Pedreschi, and F. Turini. Modular Logic Programming. ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems, 16(3):225--237, 1994.

.... as [35, 41, 45] There are also a number of languages which, while developed independently from Linear Logic, could be reconstructed in terms of the fragment of simple LinLog where the connective never occurs in goals: in general, all shared data space languages can be reconstructed in this way [26, 9, 14, 40, 13], with their computations corresponding to proof search along a single branch. For these languages, the could be used to reconstruct externally the behavior of programs with respect to different possible initial states (which would be conjoined together in the root sequent of a proof 4 ) ....

A. Brogi and P. Ciancarini. The concurrent language shared prolog. ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems, 13(1):99--123, 1991.

....to be combined and coordinated exploiting a logic based approach. 2 Coordination by logic tuple centres Logic based languages have already been successfully exploited for inter agent communication, particularly in the context of tuple based coordination models [21] such as Shared Prolog [1], ESP [3] Linda Interactor [34] and ACLT [23] There, a notion of logic tuple space (or equivalent) is typically adopted to enable inter agent communication as well as some form of agent coordination. Broadly speaking, tuple based models, like Linda [20] and its many successors and extensions ....

....or KQML [15] while e#ectively focusing on the problems of agent communication, only marginally address the issues of agent coordination [24] which is instead the central issue in ReSpecT. With regard to other proposals exploiting logic languages for the coordination of multi agent systems [33,1,3], the notion of logic tuple centre enhances the notion of logic tuple space with the ability to express the laws for the coordination of multi agent systems in terms of a logic based language, ReSpecT, and to embed them into the coordination media. The notion of logic tuple centre as defined in ....

Brogi, A. and P. Ciancarini, The concurrent language, Shared Prolog, ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems 13 (1991), pp. 99--123. 193 Omicini and Denti

....are studied. A deductive object oriented language with encapsulation is presented. The language is affected by the F Logic data model. Proof theoretic, model theoretic and fixed point semantics are given and proved equivalent. However, the proposed language lacks the notion of inheritance. 1 In [BMPT94] the language of program expressions encompass encapsulation as a unary operation over a program expression. A program expression can be a plain logic program or a synthesis of logic programs. Encapsulation substitutes a program expression with its least Herbrand model. This approach is similar ....

A. Brogi, P. Mancrella, D. Pedreschi, and F. Turini. Modular logic programming. ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems, 16:1361-- 1398, 1994.

....argument from the data structure (called the blackboard) and on the other hand, by treating active processes like passive data on the blackboard i.e. by manipulating them by the same primitives. For both frameworks as well as for any framework inherited from the above general scheme (such as [2, 5, 10, 8, 12, 9, 7, 11]) it is widely recognized that communication issues are better separated from logical ones. Hence, a natural way of writing a program consists of splitting the problems into subproblems, of solving them individually, assuming the required data is available, and of combining them, checking that ....

....divide and conquer methodology. Our talk will discuss two proposals along these lines. For the purposes of illustration and simplicity, we will use the sequential and passive version of Log, called Log. However, we strongly believe that our results can be transposed to other schemes including [2, 5, 10, 8, 12, 9, 7, 11]. After a brief description of the Log framework, we will propose and criticize a first methodological approach based on the combination of traces. Their low level nature evidences the need for a more abstract approach, proposed next. It lies on specifications written in a UNITY like logic ( 6] ....

A. Brogi and P. Ciancarini. The Concurrent Language Shared Prolog. ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems, 13(1):99-- 123, January 1991.

....exploiting a logic based approac h. Fo r ma l ReSpecT 3 2 Coordination with logic tuple centres Logic based languages have been already suc c essfully exploited for inter agentc ommuni c tion, parti c larly in the c ntext of tuple basedc oordination models [22] suc h as Shared Prolog [1], ESP [3] Linda Interac tor [34] and ACLT [24] There, a notion of logic tuple space, or equivalent, is typic ally adopted to enable inter agent c ommunic ation as well as some form ofc oordination. Broadly speaking, tuple based models, like Linda [21] and its many suc c essors and extensions ....

....[16] while e#ec tively foc using on the problems of agentc ommunic ation, only marginally address the issues of agentc oordination [25] whic h is instead thec entral issue in ReSpecT. With respec t to other proposals exploiting logic languages for thec oordination of multi agent systems [33, 1, 3], the notion of logic tuplec entre enhanc es the notion of logic tuple spac with the ability to express the laws for thec oordination of multiagent systems in terms of a logic based language, ReSpecT, and to embed them into thec oordination media. The notion of logic tuplec entre as defined in ....

A. Brogi and P. Ciancarini. The concurrent language, Shared Prolog. ACMTransacti ons on Programmi ng Languages and Systems, 13(1), January 1991.

No context found.

A. Brogi, P. Mancarella, D. Pedreschi, and F. Turini. Modular Logic Programming. ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems, 16(4):1361--1398, 1994.

No context found.

A. Brogi, P. Mancarella, P. Pedreschi, and F. Turini. Modular Logic Programming. ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems, 16(4):1361--1398, 1994. 25

....tuples in a shared dataspace. In fact, processes coordinate themselves using a small set of primitives allowing to read (read) or delete (in) a tuple, and to write (out) a tuple in the shared dataspace. The Linda coordination model has been investigated in logic programming as well: Shared Prolog [8], log [35] and LO [3] are examples of logic languages based on shared dataspaces. In addition to this theoretical interest this coordination model has also achieved a signi cant impact in the existing Prolog implementations. For instance Sicstus Prolog [39, 46] a widespread Prolog ....

A. Brogi and P. Ciancarini. The concurrent language Shared Prolog. ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems, 13(1):99-123, 1991.

....for modeling and handling temporal information, together with some basic operators for combining di erent temporal knowledge bases. The proposed approach stems from two separate lines of research: the general studies on meta level operators on logic programs introduced by Brogi et al. [6, 8] and Temporal Annotated Constraint Logic Programming (TACLP) de ned by Fr uhwirth [14] In MuTACLP atoms are annotated with temporal information which are managed via a constraint theory, as in TACLP. Mechanisms for structuring programs and combining separate knowledge bases are provided ....

.... nite, inde nite and periodic temporal information, and to work both with time points and time periods (time intervals) Furthermore, as a mechanism for structuring programs and combining di erent knowledge sources, MuTACLP o ers a set of program composition operators in the style of Brogi et al. [6, 8]. Concerning the semantical aspects, the use of meta logic allows us to provide MuTACLP with a formal and, at the same time, executable top down semantics based on a meta interpreter. Furthermore the language is given a bottom up semantics by introducing an immediate consequence operator which ....

[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]

A. Brogi, P. Mancarella, D. Pedreschi, and F. Turini. Modular logic programming. ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems, 16(4):1361{ 1398, 1994.

....programming is its rooting in mathematical logic, which supports the well founded de nition of alternative equivalent semantics for the language. These in turn ease the development of formal methods and semantics based tools for program development. This work starts from the results presented in [2, 3], where a logic programming approach to program composition was presented. The approach presented in in [2, 3] centers on the de nition of a family of meta level composition operations over named de nite logic programs. From a programming perspective, the introduction of the operations has been ....

....semantics for the language. These in turn ease the development of formal methods and semantics based tools for program development. This work starts from the results presented in [2, 3] where a logic programming approach to program composition was presented. The approach presented in in [2, 3] centers on the de nition of a family of meta level composition operations over named de nite logic programs. From a programming perspective, the introduction of the operations has been shown to enhance the expressive power and knowledge representation capabilities of logic programming, by ....

[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]

A. Brogi, P. Mancarella, D. Pedreschi, and F. Turini. Modular Logic Programming. ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems, 16(4):1361-1398, 1994.

....A number of other models, now referred to as coordination models, have been proposed afterwards. Some of them extend Linda in di erent ways, for instance by introducing multiple dataspaces and meta level control rules (e.g. Bauhaus Linda [20] Bonita [23] Log [18] PoliS [10] Shared Prolog [6]) by addressing open distributed systems (e.g. Laura [30] middleware web based environments (e.g. Jada [11] or mobility (e.g. KLAIM [21] A number of other coordination models rely on a notion of shared dataspace, e.g. Concurrent Constraint Programming [26] Gamma [3] Linear Objects [1] ....

A. Brogi and P. Ciancarini. The Concurrent Language Shared Prolog. ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems, 13(1):99-123, January 1991.

....data in a shared dataspace. A number of other coordination models have been proposed after Linda. Some of them extend Linda in di erent ways, for instance by introducing multiple dataspaces and meta level control rules (e.g. Bauhaus Linda [10] Bonita [22] Log ( 19] PoliS [11] Shared Prolog [5]) by addressing open distributed systems (e.g. Laura [25] middleware web based environments (e.g. Jada [13] or mobility (e.g. KLAIM [15] A number of other coordination models rely on a notion of shared dataspace, e.g. Concurrent Constraint Programming [23] Gamma [2] and Linear Objects ....

....tell) corresponds to Linda without process creation. Moreover, LMR (ask; get; tell) corresponds to Gamma [2] LMR (ask; nask; get; tell) extends Gamma with negative (nonlocal) pre conditions , while L CS (ask; nask; get; tell) generalises the communication transactions introduced in Shared Prolog [5]. As just suggested, the families L L , LMR , and LCS are thus representatives of a substantial number of coordination languages. We turn in this paper to an exhaustive pair wise comparison of the expressive power of the languages obtained by taking X as fask; tellg, fask; get; tellg, and fask; ....

[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]

A. Brogi and P. Ciancarini. The Concurrent Language Shared Prolog. ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems, 13(1):99-123, January 1991. 32

No context found.

A. Brogi and P. Ciancarini. The concurrent language shared prolog. ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems, 13(1):99--123, 1991.

No context found.

A. Brogi and P. Ciancarini. The Concurrent Language, Shared Prolog. ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems, 13(1):99--123, 1991.

No context found.

A. Brogi and P. Ciancarini. The concurrent language shared prolog. ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems, 13(1):99--123, 1991.

No context found.

BROGI, A.; CIANCARINI, P. The Concurrent Language, Shared Prolog. ACM Transaction on Programming Languages and Systems. New York, v.13, n.1, p.99-123, January 1991.

No context found.

A. Brogi, P. Mancarella, D. Pedreschi, and F. Turini. Modular Logic Programming. ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems, 16(4):1361--1398, 1994.

No context found.

A. Brogi and P. Ciancarini. The concurrent language, Shared Prolog. ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems, 13(1):99-123, January 1991.

No context found.

Antonio Brogi and Paolo Ciancarini. The concurrent language Shared Prolog. ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems, 13(1):99--123, 1991.

First 50 documents  Next 50

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