P. Hill and J. Gallagher. Meta-programming in logic programming. In D. M. Gabbay, C. Hogger, and J. Robinson, editors, Handbook of logic in Artificial Intelligence and Logic Programming, pages 421--498. Clarendon press, 1998. volume 5. Logic Programming.  Home/Search   Document Details and Download   Summary   Related Articles   Check

....while ours preserve most general computed answer substitutions only. Our language has limited higher order capabilities, because quanti ed function or predicate variables are not allowed. In the literature there are several proposals of higher order logic languages (see, for instance, [6,7,10]) However, the main contribution of this paper is not the design of a new higher order language, but the use of some higher order constructs for the development of e cient logic programs by transformation. Indeed, we have shown that variables which range over goals are useful in the context of ....

P. M. Hill and J. Gallagher. Meta-programming in logic programming. In D. M. Gabbay, C. J. Hogger, and J. A. Robinson, editors, Handbook of Logic in Articial Intelligence and Logic Programming, volume 5, pages 421497. Oxford University Press, 1998.

....the produce consume example from [44] see also [50] requires rather involved techniques (considering the context) to be solved by wfo s. Again, this example poses no problem to Theta (cf. Appendix B) The homeomorphic embedding Theta is also very powerful in the context of metaprogramming [21]. Notably, it has the ability to penetrate layers of (nonground) meta encodings (see Appendix B for some computer experiments; see also Section 7) For instance, Theta will admit the following sequences (where, among others, Example 1 is progressively wrapped into vanilla metainterpreters ....

.... [21] Notably, it has the ability to penetrate layers of (nonground) meta encodings (see Appendix B for some computer experiments; see also Section 7) For instance, Theta will admit the following sequences (where, among others, Example 1 is progressively wrapped into vanilla metainterpreters [45, 46,21] counting resolution steps and keeping track of the selected predicates respectively) Sequence rev( a; bjT ] R) rev( bjT ] a] R) solve(rev( a; bjT ] R) 0) solve(rev( bjT ] a] R) s(0) solve(rev ( a; bjT ] R) 0) solve (solve(rev( bjT ] a] R) s(0) ....

[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]

P. Hill and J. Gallagher. Meta-programming in logic programming. In D. M. Gabbay, C. J. Hogger, and J. A. Robinson, editors, Handbook of Logic in Artificial Intelligence and Logic Programming, volume 5, pages 421--497. Oxford Science Publications, Oxford University Press, 1998.

....been considered in many branches of logic and computer science, and more recently in their intersection area named computational logic or logic programming. Their importance and usefulness in logic [55, 56] and in theorem proving [38] in computer science [30, 51, 60] and in logic programming [7, 40, 47] has been generally recognised (see also [1, 11, 13, 32, 57] for snapshots of research) The common intuitive notion of reflection in such different areas is that of an access relationship between theories or programs at the object level and theories or programs at the metalevel. The object level ....

P. M. Hill and J. Gallagher. Meta-programming in logic programming. In D. Gabbay, C. J. Hogger, and J. A. Robinson, editors, Handbook of Logic in Artificial Intelligence and Logic Programming, Vol. 5. Oxford University Press, 1995.

....de ned in [8] in Metalogic Programming) and the re ection rule of the FOL system [36] Its clear that, if the object theory and the meta theory are completely distinct, then (1) cannot be stated in any of the two theories. Examples of such approaches are [36, 17] in Arti cial Intelligence) and [21, 22] (in Metalogic Programming) A second observation about (1) concerns its role namely, how and to which purpose the re ection principle is used. A rst possibility is that (1) has a descriptive role. This means that (1) is a statement that is true for a speci c pair of object and metatheory. In ....

....schematic formula [P 1 ; Pn ] such that, for any OM pair OM = hO; M; RR)i, THOM (M) TH(M (RR) TH(O) f [A 1 ; An ] A i 2 LO g) 38) The literature contains many approaches where a metatheory is de ned in terms of schematic formulas. For instance, in metalogic programming [22], metainterpreters are very similar to the schematic formula (K) in provability logic [32] the metatheory is built by the axiom schema ( A A) A) and the necessitation rule A A ; Feferman s local re ection principles [12] is also a schematic formula. Now the interesting question is ....

[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]

P.M. Hill and J.G. Gallagher. Meta-Programming in Logic Programming. In D.M. Gabbay, C.J. Hogger, and J.A. Robinson, editors, The Handbook of Logic in AI and Logic Programming, volume 5, pages 421-498. Oxford University Press, 1998.

....One of them is the possibility of tackling critical foundation problems of meta programming within a framework with a strong theoretical basis. Another is the surprising ease of programming. These reasons motivated an intensive research on metaprogramming inside the logic programming community [4, 16, 19, 22, 23]. On the other hand, termination analysis is one of the most intensive research areas in logic programming as well. See [12] for the survey. More recent work on this topic can be found among others in [14, 18, 20, 24, 30] Traditionally, termination analysis of logic programs have been done ....

....starting in queries G 2 S are non floundering. By extending the notion of order acceptability to normal programs and applying the same methodology as above one can prove that the following meta interpreter M 4 , being an immediate extension of vanilla meta interpreter to normal programs [16], preserves LDNF termination. Soundness and completeness of M 4 are proved in Theorem 2.3.3 [17] solve(true) solve( Atom; Atoms) solve(Atom) solve(Atoms) solve( Atom) solve(Atom) solve(Head) clause(Head; Body) solve(Body) Theorem 5. Let P be a normal program, S be a set of ....

P. Hill and J. Gallagher. Meta-programming in logic programming. In D. M. Gabbay, C. Hogger, and J. Robinson, editors, Handbook of logic in Artificial Intelligence and Logic Programming, pages 421--498. Clarendon press, 1998. volume 5. Logic Programming.

....of tackling critical foundation problems of meta programming within a framework with a strong theoretical basis. Another is the surprising ease of programming. These reasons motivated an intensive research on meta programming inside the logic programming community [1, 8, 10, 11] See also [6] for a survey. On the other hand, termination analysis is one of the most intensive research areas in logic programming as well. See [3] for the survey. More recent work on this topic can be found among others in [4, 5, 7, 9, 12, 14 16] Traditionally, termination analysis of logic programs ....

P. Hill and J. Gallagher. Meta-programming in logic programming. In D. M. Gabbay, C. Hogger, and J. Robinson, editors, Handbook of logic in Artificial Intelligence and Logic Programming, pages 421--498. Clarendon press, 1998. volume 5. Logic Programming.

....at the meta level. An alternative, equivalent formulation of the extended meta interpreter using the ground representation of object programs is described in [5] A thorough discussion of the relative merits of the two representations is outside the scope of this paper and can be found in [5, 20, 21, 33]. However, since the extended vanilla meta interpreter does not modify the object programs, the use of a nonground representation of object programs is preferrable since the resulting meta interpreter has a natural declarative semantics [33] besides the usual simplicity and efficiency. In this ....

.... the statement: Statement(IC, Train(x,y,Int) If Empty) 2 3 Background: Partial evaluation in logic programming This section is devoted to recall some basic definitions and theoretical foundations of partial evaluation in logic programming, taken from [31] The interested reader may also refer to [20, 38] for an introduction to partial evaluation and program transformation in logic programming. Let us first introduce the notion of resultant that is needed in the definition of partial evaluation. Definition 1 A resultant is a first order formula of the form Q 1 Q 2 , where Q i is either absent ....

[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]

P.M. Hill and J. Gallagher. Meta-Programming in Logic Programming. In A. Robinson and C. Hogger, editors, Handbook of Logic in Artificial Intelligence and Logic Programming, chapter 5. Oxford University Press, 1996.

....and metasystem transition. Subsequently, these concepts have been formalized [10] and studied in different contexts, e.g. 13, 26] Representing and reasoning about object level theories is an important field in logic and artificial intelligence (e.g. different encodings have been discussed in [14]) and has led to the development of logic languages that support declarative metaprogramming (e.g. the programming language Godel [15] Logic variables and unification as provided by their underlying logic system, lack, among others, the notion of elevation and the direct support for multiply ....

P. Hill and J. Gallagher. Meta-programming in logic programming. Technical Report 94.22, School of Computer Studies, University of Leeds, 1994.

....the role of a continuation, and indeed, the evaluation of ipcheck(X; Y ) consists of the evaluation of the goal newp(X; Y; G) followed by the evaluation of the continuation which is the goal bound to G. There are several other proposals in the literature for higher order logic languages (see [6, 9] for recent surveys) Our main contribution in this paper is a transformational approach to the development of higher order logic programs, which we believe, has received very little attention so far. Notice that, as already mentioned, our language has only limited higher order capabilities, ....

P. M. Hill and J. Gallagher. Meta-programming in logic programming. In D. M. Gabbay, C. J. Hogger, and J. A. Robinson, editors, Handbook of Logic in Articial Intelligence and Logic Programming, volume 5, pages 421-497. Oxford University Press, 1998.

....without the cogen . A further advantage of the cogen approach for logic languages is that the compilers and compiler generators can use the non ground representation. This is in contrast to self applicable partial deducers which must use the ground representation in order to be declarative (see [28, 47, 26]) In fact, the non ground representation executes several orders of magnitude faster than the ground representation (even after specialising, see [8] and, as shown in [47, 43] can be impossible to specialise satisfactorily by partial deduction alone. 57] uses a kind of mixed representation ....

....orders of magnitude faster than the ground representation (even after specialising, see [8] and, as shown in [47, 43] can be impossible to specialise satisfactorily by partial deduction alone. 57] uses a kind of mixed representation where programs are ground and goals non ground; see also [42, 28]) Although the Futamura projections focus on how to generate a compiler from an interpreter, the projections of course also apply when we replace the interpreter by some other program. In this case the program produced by the second Futamura projection is not called a compiler, but a generating ....

[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]

P. Hill and J. Gallagher. Meta-programming in logic programming. In D. M. Gabbay, C. J. Hogger, and J. A. Robinson, editors, Handbook of Logic in Artificial Intelligence and Logic Programming, volume 5, pages 421--497. Oxford Science Publications, Oxford University Press, 1998.

....example from [53] see also [58] requires rather involved techniques (considering the context) to be solved by wfo s. Again, this particular example poses no problem to Theta (cf. Appendix B) The homeomorphic embedding Theta is also very powerful in the context of metaprogramming [28]. Notably, it has the ability to penetrate layers of (non ground) meta encodings (see Section 7 as well as Appendix B for some computer experiments) For instance, Theta will admit the following sequences (where, among others, Example 1.2 is progressively wrapped into non ground ....

....[ p q struct(clause; struct(p; struct(q; Figure 4: A ground representation 10 Usually one does not use the representation p(var(1) a) because then one cannot use the function symbol var=1 at the object level. 11 For a more detailed discussion we refer the reader to [28], 54] 29, 7] 45, 44, 41] solve(true) solve(A B) solve(A) solve(B) solve(H) clause(H; B) solve(B) Figure 5: The vanilla metainterpreter Of course, one is not restricted to just one level of meta interpretation; one can have a whole hierarchy of metainterpretation [19] where each ....

[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]

P. Hill and J. Gallagher. Meta-programming in logic programming. In D. M. Gabbay, C. J. Hogger, and J. A. Robinson, editors, Handbook of Logic in Artificial Intelligence and Logic Programming, volume 5, pages 421--497. Oxford Science Publications, Oxford University Press, 1998.

.... in the area of logic programming, the encoding of programs has been studied under various names, e.g. naming relation [28,3] Representing and reasoning about object level theories is an important field in logic and artificial intelligence (e.g. different encodings have been discussed in [12]) and has led to the development of logic languages that support declarative metaprogramming (e.g. the programming language Godel [13] A multilevel metalogic programming language has been suggested in [2] an approach similar to our multi level metaprogramming environment, but directed towards ....

Patricia Hill and John Gallagher. Meta-programming in logic programming. Technical Report 94.22, School of Computer Studies, University of Leeds, 1994.

....at the meta level. An alternative, equivalent formulation of the extended meta interpreter using the ground representation of object programs is described in [5] A thorough discussion of the relative merits of the two representations is outside the scope of this paper and can be found in [5, 18, 19, 27]. However, since the extended vanilla meta interpreter does not modify the object programs, the use of a nonground representation of object programs is preferable since the resulting meta interpreter has a natural declarative semantics [27] besides the usual simplicity and efficiency. In this ....

.... statement: Statement(IC, Train(x,y,Int) If Empty) 2 3 Background: Partial evaluation in logic programming This section is devoted to recall some basic definitions and theoretical foundations of partial evaluation in logic programming, taken from [26] The interested reader may also refer to [18, 30] for an introduction to partial evaluation and program transformation in logic programming. Let us first introduce the notion of resultant that is needed in the definition of partial evaluation. Definition 1 A resultant is a first order formula of the form Q 1 Q 2 , where Q i is either absent ....

[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]

P.M. Hill and J. Gallagher. Meta-Programming in Logic Programming. In Artificial Intelligence and Logic Programming. Oxford University Press, 1994.

No context found.

P. Hill and J. Gallagher. Meta-programming in logic programming. In D. M. Gabbay, C. Hogger, and J. Robinson, editors, Handbook of logic in Artificial Intelligence and Logic Programming, pages 421--498. Clarendon press, 1998. volume 5. Logic Programming.

No context found.

P. Hill and J. Gallagher. Meta-programming in logic programming. Technical Report 94.22, School of Computer Studies, University of Leeds, 1994.

No context found.

P.M. Hill and J.G. Gallagher. Meta-programming in logic programming. In The Handbook of Logic in AI and Logic Programming, volume 5, D.M. Gabbay, C.J. Hogger, and J.A. Robinson, eds., pp. 421--498. Oxford University Press, 1998.

No context found.

Hill, P.M., Gallagher, J.: Meta-programming in logic programming. In Gabbay, D., Hogger, C.J., Robinson, J.A., eds.: Handbook of Logic in Artificial Intelligence and Logic Programming, Vol. 5, Oxford University Press (1995)

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