E. Best, F. de Boer, and C. Palamidessi. Concurrent constraint programming with information removal. In Proceedings of Coordination, LNCS. Springer-Verlag, 1997.  Home/Search   Document Not in Database   Summary   Related Articles   Check

....languages (LCC) is obtained simply by allowing constraint systems based on Jean Yves Girard s Linear Logic [5] LL) instead of classical logic. It greatly extends the expressive power of CC, as non monotonic evolutions of the store are possible through the consumption of constraints by ask agents [2, 10] but still enjoys a simple logical semantics in LL. These results have been used in [3, 4] to prove safety properties of LCC programs simply by exhibiting special phase models of programs. This presentation is about the implementation in CLP of a model checker based on the phase semantics of LL, ....

....would allow us to solve this problem, it is however noticeable that a simple modi cation of our solver allows it to handle doubletons by simply using GNU Prolog s list constructor, and that we thus already have a more general solver. find dbl( prod cons , p,pro] dem] top) p= 1,1] pro=[2,1] dem= 2,2] c= 0,0] Such a modi cation should allow us to use bounded lists of a size much bigger than two, however our solver gets really slow and the lack of a specialized solver is severely felt. 4 Experimental results The following table sums up our experimental results. The size of the ....

[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]

E. Best, F.S. de Boer, and C. Palamidessi. Concurrent constraint programming with information removal. In Proceedings of Coordination, LNCS. Springer-Verlag, 1997.

....LCC is obtained from CC simply by allowing constraint systems based on linear logic instead of classical logic. This is a generalization which greatly extends the expressive power of CC, as non monotonic evolutions of the store are possible through the consumption of constraints by ask agents [3, 12] but it still enjoys a simple linear logic semantics with the same soundness and completeness properties. These results have been used in [4, 5] to prove safety properties of LCC programs simply by exhibiting special phase models of programs. This paper presents, after some preliminary de ....

E. Best, F.S. de Boer, and C. Palamidessi. Concurrent constraint programming with information removal. In Proceedings of Coordination, LNCS. Springer-Verlag, 1997.

....Nevertheless the monotonic evolution of the store is also a severe limitation to the expressive power of CC languages. Several non monotonic extensions of CC, where constraints can be consumed and removed from the store during computations, have been thus de ned to escape from these limitations [4]. For example, the language LCC [10, 25] is a variant of CC with constraint systems based on linear logic and where constraints are consumed by the ask agents. 25] gives simple embeddings in LCC of the calculus, the Linda coordination language [6] or the asynchronous pi calculus [5] which are ....

.... from the fact that constraints can only be added to the store along a computation in CC languages, several variants of 3 CC where the constraints can be consumed by ask agents and thus removed from the store, have been introduced by Saraswat and Lincoln [25, 28] or Best, de Boer and Palamidessi [4]: these variants enhance signi cantly the expressive power of CC and the constraints are naturally modeled as formulae of linear logic. In this section we present the variant LCC based on linear logic constraint systems used in [10] and show how classical CC languages are embedded in LCC. 2.1 ....

[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]

E. Best, F.S. de Boer, and C. Palamidessi. Concurrent constraint programming with information removal. In Proceedings of Coordination, LNCS. Springer-Verlag, 1997.

....Nevertheless the monotonic evolution of the store is also a severe limitation to the expressive power of CC languages. Several non monotonic extensions of CC, where constraints can be consumed and removed from the store during computations, have been thus de ned to escape from these limitations [4]. For example, the language LCC [10, 25] is a variant of CC with constraint systems based on linear logic and where constraints are consumed by the ask agents. 25] gives simple embeddings in LCC of the calculus, the Linda coordination language [6] or the asynchronous pi calculus [5] which are ....

.... from the fact that constraints can only be added to the store along a computation in CC languages, several variants of CC where the constraints can be consumed by ask agents and thus removed from the store, have been introduced by Saraswat and Lincoln [25, 27] or Best, de Boer and Palamidessi [4]: these variants enhance signi cantly the expressive power of CC and the constraints are naturally modeled as formulae of linear logic. In this section we present the variant LCC based on linear logic constraint systems used in [10] and show how classical CC languages are embedded in LCC. 2.1 ....

[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]

E. Best, F.S. de Boer, and C. Palamidessi. Concurrent constraint programming with information removal. In Proceedings of Coordination, LNCS. Springer-Verlag, 1997.

....use of the phase semantics for proving safety properties of CC programs. Outline of the paper. Section 2 presents a natural extension of CC languages in this context, namely Linear CC (LCC) where the constraint system is axiomatized in linear logic. LCC is an extension of CC, somewhat similar to [3] or [33] but where constraints are consumed by ask agents without dependency maintenance or recomputation. Linear constraint systems have also been proposed in [34] in a higher order setting which will not be considered here. From an operational point of view, LCC extends CC in a fundamental way ....

.... of finer observables than intuitionistic logic, and is therefore a natural semantics for CC; on the other hand, variants of CC, where the constraints can be consumed by ask agents and thus removed from the store, have been introduced by Saraswat and Lincoln [34] then further studied in [3, 38]: these variants enhance significantly the expressive power of CC (see the examples of communication protocol programs in section 2.2.3) and the constraints are naturally modeled as formulas of linear logic. In this section we present such a version, LCC, and give a translation from CC into LCC ....

[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]

E. Best, F.S. de Boer, and C. Palamidessi. Concurrent constraint programming with information removal. In Proceedings of Coordination, LNCS. Springer-Verlag, 1997.

....LCC is 2 obtained from CC simply by allowing constraint systems based on linear logic instead of classical logic. This is a generalization which greatly extends the expressive power of CC, as non monotonic evolution of the stores are possible through the consumption of constraints by ask agents [4, 25], but it does not a ect the logical completeness properties studied in this paper. Section 3 presents the new translation and the logical completeness results for the observations of the successes, of the accessible stores and of the suspensions of LCC computations. This series of results improves ....

.... from the fact that constraints can only be added to the store along a computation in CC languages, several variants of CC where the constraints can be consumed by ask agents and thus removed from the store, have been introduced by Saraswat and Lincoln [25, 27] or Beck, de Boer and Palamidessi [4]: these variants enhance signi cantly the expressive power of CC and the constraints are naturally modeled as formulae of linear logic. In this section we present the variant LCC used in [7, 8] We give the translation from CC into LCC respecting the transition system, so that LCC is a re nement ....

[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]

E. Best, F.S. de Boer, and C. Palamidessi. Concurrent constraint programming with information removal. In Proceedings of Coordination, LNCS. Springer-Verlag, 1997.

....use of the phase semantics for proving safety properties of CC programs. Outline of the paper. Section 2 presents a natural extension of CC languages in this context, namely Linear CC (LCC) where the constraint system is axiomatized in linear logic. LCC is an extension of CC, somewhat similar to [3] or [33] but where constraints are consumed by ask agents without dependency maintenance or recomputation. Linear constraint systems have also been proposed in [34] in a higher order setting which will not be considered here. From an operational point of view, LCC extends CC in a fundamental way ....

.... of ner observables than intuitionistic logic, and is therefore a natural semantics for CC; on the other hand, variants of CC, where the constraints can be consumed by ask agents and thus removed from the store, have been introduced by Saraswat and Lincoln [34] then further studied in [3, 38]: these variants enhance signi cantly the expressive power of CC (see the examples of communication protocol programs in section 2.2.3) and the constraints are naturally modeled as formulas of linear logic. In this section we present such a version, LCC, and give a translation from CC into LCC ....

[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]

E. Best, F.S. de Boer, and C. Palamidessi. Concurrent constraint programming with information removal. In Proceedings of Coordination, LNCS. Springer-Verlag, 1997.

....of CC languages in this context, namely Linear CC (LCC) where the constraint system is axiomatized in linear logic. Linear constraint systems have been proposed in [24] in a higher order setting which will not be considered here. LCC is a non monotonic extension of CC, somewhat similar to [2] or [23] but where constraints are consumed by ask agents without dependency maintenance or recomputation. From an operational point of view, LCC extends CC in a fundamental way by introducing some forms of imperative programming, particularly useful for reactive systems. Classical CC programs ....

....is the dining philosophers: N philosophers are sitting around a table and alternate thinking and eating. Each of them has one fork on his (or her) right, and thus also one fork on his (or her) left, and needs these two forks to eat (the chop sticks version may be more realistic) As suggested in [2], the programming of this problem in LCC is very simple. The atomic constraints are: fork(I) eat(I,N) for I,N2 N , and N=M, N6=M for N,M 2 N ; the entailment relation is trivial. The code is described in table 3. Note that unlike a classical CC program, the imperative data structures are encoded ....

E. Best, F.S. de Boer, and C. Palamidessi. Concurrent constraint programming with information removal. In Proceedings of Coordination, LNCS. Springer-Verlag, 1997.

....enough to be able to deal with such situations and solve them in some satisfactory way. For example, the constraints and constraint solving algorithms could take into account the presence of preferences of some sort [6,11,48] and or the language could allow for user guided constraint retraction [24,5] and intelligible explanations for failure. This of course would bring the constraint satisfaction and programming tasks closer to the issues present in optimization problems, since in the presence of preferences one has to decide the best way to choose and or retract constraints. Thus special ....

E. Best, F.S. De Boer, and C. Palamidessi. Concurrent constraint programming with information removal. In First Conference on Concurrent Constraint Programming, Venice, 1995.

....the deletion of constraints have been presented in the literature lately. For example, the approach in [BKPR93] provides CCP languages with an explicit operation which deletes all the constraints currently present in the store and which involve a certain set of variables. Or also the approach in [BdBP94] where only one occurrence of a constraint is removed from the store, thus possibly obtaining a new store where (some occurrences of) the constraint are still present. Our proposal (within task 1.1) differs from both approaches in that we want to specify the constraint to be deleted, and not ....

.... recently there has been another attempt to give a semantics for CCP languages based on partial orders, so to be able to see, for example, the maximal level of parallelism of a program, and thus to be able to compare different CCP languages from the point of view of the maximum parallelism allowed [BdBP94] However, the construction of the partial order is very different from ours, and it seems to yield a less accurate description of the concurrency present in a program execution. Moreover, it cannot show the nondeterminism present in a CCP program, since the semantic structure is a set of partial ....

E. Best, F. de Boer, and C. Palamidessi. Concurrent Constraint Programming with Information Removal. Proc. 1st International Workshop on Concurrent Constraint Programming, Venice, May 1995.

....While moving to linear logic, it is very natural to move to a non monotonic version of CC at the same time, where constraints are consumed, but where monotonic CC can be easily encoded. Such variants have been introduced by Saraswat and Lincoln in a higher order setting [30] further studied in [3], where the logic of constraints is linear logic : in this version, constraints can be consumed, and the language is therefore closer to process calculi like Milner s calculus [20] In [7, 26] a first order non monotonic variant, LCC (linear CC) is defined in which both stores and successes ....

....[31, 12] The property of monotonicity can however be dropped from CC programming, by considering linear constraint systems where constraints are formulas in linear logic [9] 2. 2 Linear CC Non monotonic variants of CC have been introduced by Saraswat and Lincoln [30] then further studied in [3]. As for the monotonic CC, we define the constraint systems, the agents, the configurations and the transition system. Definition 8 (Linear constraint system) A linear constraint system is a pair (C; C ) where: C is a set of formulas (the linear constraints) built from a set V of ....

[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]

E. Best, F.S. de Boer, and C. Palamidessi. Concurrent constraint programming with information removal. In Proc. of Coordination'97. Springer LNCS, 1997.

....of closure operators semantics, it does make the early vs. late branching distinction, so a ( b B) c C) 6= a b B) a c C) unlike [Pra86] The studies most relevant to the present paper are studies of causality and true concurreny issues in the cc paradigm see for example, [MR95, MR91, dBGMP94,dBPB95]. MR95, MR91] propose a framework, based on graph rewriting and occurrence nets, to study true concurrency issues in the cc languages [MR95] In this paper, we do (essentially) adopt the framework of contextual agents of [MR95, MR91] to describe extraction of causality information from the ....

....this paper, we do (essentially) adopt the framework of contextual agents of [MR95, MR91] to describe extraction of causality information from the program execution in the operational semantics. Our primary distinct contribution is the logical denotational analysis of the operational semantics. [dBPB95] propose a true concurrency framework for a more general class of nonmonotonic cc languages. When specialised to monotonic cc languages, their framework yields essentially a step semantics , where a collection of concurrent actions can be performed at each step. Our work differs from [dBPB95] in ....

[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]

F. S. de Boer, Catuscia Palamidessi, and Eike Best. Concurrent constraint programming with information removal. In Proceedings of the Concurrent Constraint Programming Workshop, pages 1--13, Venice, 1995.

....While moving to linear logic, it is very natural to move to a non monotonic version of cc at the same time, where constraints are consumed, but where monotonic cc can be easily encoded. Such variants have been introduced by Saraswat and Lincoln in a higher order setting [30] further studied in [5, 33], where the logic of constraints is linear logic: in this version, constraints can be consumed, and the language is therefore closer to process calculi like Milner s calculus [21] In [26] a first order non monotonic variant, lcc, is defined in which the successes are characterized in ILL ....

E. Best, F.S. de Boer, and C. Palamidessi. Concurrent constraint programming with information retrieval. Esprit project ACCLAIM final report, 1994.

....just 9 x S) we believe that such operation is not very powerful, and too large grained, since in most of the situations one would like to remove only some of the constraints related to some of the variables, and not all of them. Another related proposal can be found in a recently written draft [BPB] where a formalization of non monotonic CC programming using linear logic is defined. In that work, several occurrences of the same constraint may be present in a store, and the proposed get(c) operation deletes from the store just one (indeterministically chosen) of them. This means that the ....

F.S. De Boer, C. Palamidessi, and E. Best. Concurrent Constraint Programming with Information Removal. Draft manuscript, 1993.

....use of the phase semantics for proving safety properties of CC programs. Outline of the paper. Section 2 presents a natural extension of CC languages in this context, namely Linear CC (LCC) where the constraint system is axiomatized in linear logic. LCC is an extension of CC, somewhat similar to [3] or [30] but where constraints are consumed by ask agents without dependency maintenance or recomputation. Linear constraint systems have also been proposed in [31] in a higher order setting which will not be considered here. From an operational point of view, LCC extends CC in a fundamental way ....

.... of finer observables than intuitionistic logic, and is therefore a natural semantics for CC; on the other hand, variants of CC, where the constraints can be consumed by ask agents and thus removed from the store, have been introduced by Saraswat and Lincoln [31] then further studied in [3, 34]: these variants enhance significantly the expressive power of CC (see the examples of communication protocol programs in section 2.2.3) and the constraints are naturally modeled as formulas of linear logic. In this section we present such a version, LCC, and give a translation from CC into LCC ....

[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]

E. Best, F.S. de Boer, and C. Palamidessi. Concurrent constraint programming with information removal. In Proceedings of Coordination, LNCS. Springer-Verlag, 1997.

....family of constraint solving algorithms in the spirit of cc(FD) i.e. from a set of elementary, combinable primitives aimed at abstracting its fundamental operations. In this paper, we show how Linear cc (lcc) a nonmonotonic extension of cc languages introduced in [14] in a spirit similar to [1], where the constraint system is axiomatized in linear logic and constraints are consumed by ask agents without maintenance or recomputation may be used to overcome the non monotony obstacle , and in so doing we provide the first example of practical use of the lcc framework. We illustrate lcc ....

E. Best, F.S. de Boer, and C. Palamidessi. Concurrent constraint programming with information removal. In Proceedings of Coordination, LNCS. Springer-Verlag, 1997.

No context found.

E. Best, F. de Boer, and C. Palamidessi. Concurrent constraint programming with information removal. In Proceedings of Coordination, LNCS. Springer-Verlag, 1997.

No context found.

E. Best, F.S. de Boer, and C. Palamidessi. Concurrent constraint programming with information retrieval. Esprit project ACCLAIM final report, 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