Keith Clark and Steve Gregory. A relational language for parallel programming. In ACM conference on Functional Programming and computer architecture, pages 171--178. ACM, 1981.  Home/Search   Document Not in Database   Summary   Related Articles   Check

....,Li,Lo,Ri,Ro) in southern, rout er (Ri, Ro ) connect (I,Li) connect (0 ,Lo) 10 Related Work Program structuring and reuse are important themes in parallel computing research. These themes are particularly visible in CSP [19] functional programming [21, 18] concurrent logic programming [10, 16], object oriented programming [1] and Unity [7] Most of these systems are based on lightweight process and message passing ideas similar to those explored in this paper. However, for a variety of reasons, they do not support the same forms of composition and reuse. CSP s processes and channels ....

Clark, K., and Gregory, S., A relational language for parallel programming, Proc. 1981.

.... 2 Related Work The benefits of an architecturally independent model of parallel computation have been widely recognized in the computer science community [29, 28, 25, 1, 7] The notion of monotonicity is at the heart of several such programming models, notably concurrent logic programming [11, 24], functional programming [28, 26, 9] and object oriented programming [1] Similarly, concurrent composition underlies such diverse approaches as CSP [29] concurrent logic programming, functional programming, and Unity [7] Unfor tunately, these models either do not support concurrent ....

Clark, K., and Gregory, S., A relational language for parallel programming, Proc. 1981.

....logic programming [13, 2] on the one hand, originated with Prolog II [6] and was prompted by the need to integrate numbers and data structures in an operationally efficient, yet logically sound manner. Concurrent logic programming [30] on the other hand, originated with the Relational Language [5] and was promoted by the Japanese Fifth Generation Project, where logic programming was conceived as the basic system programming language and thus had to account for concurrency, synchronization and indeterminism. For this purpose, the conventional SLD resolution scheme had to be replaced with a ....

K.L. Clark and S. Gregory. A relational language for parallel programming. In Proc. of the ACM Conference on Functional Programming Languages and Computer Architecture, pages 171--178, 1981.

....in logic programming over the last ten years. One emerged from the process interpretation of logic programs introduced in the late 1970s [12] and led to the design and (possibly parallel) implementation of a variety of concurrent logic programming languages amenable to process interpretation [4][34] 5] 37] These languages aim at the description of systems of processes and not directly at the description of search problems. Control is an integral part of the languages, and users program concurrent execution. The other direction aims at the parallel execution of pure logic or Prolog ....

....for concurrent programming because it was not clear what to do with its ability to compute multiple solutions. We still had to design a concrete programming language in which to describe communicating processes. The first concrete concurrent logic programming language was Relational Language [4]. It introduced Dijkstra s concept of the guard [10] into logic programming for the first time. This made Relational Language capable of describing don t care nondeterministic processes. The subsequent concurrent logic languages attempted to refine existing ones or to enhance their expressive ....

Clark, K. L. and Gregory, S. A Relational Language for Parallel Programming. In Proc. ACM Conf. on Functional Programming Languages and Computer Architecture, ACM, 1981, pp. 171--178.

....Due to the lack of appropriate tools with which to develop networked applications, computers communicate and cooperate much more poorly than they possibly can. Concurrent logic programming was born in early 1980 s from the process interpretation of logic programs [34] Relational Language [7], the first concrete proposal of a concurrent logic language, was followed by a succession of proposals, namely Concurrent Prolog [20] PARLOG [8] and Guarded Horn Clauses (GHC) 27] KL1 [29] the Kernel Language of the Fifth Generation Computer Systems (FGCS) project [22] was designed based on ....

Clark, K. L. and Gregory, S., A Relational Language for Parallel Programming. In Proc. ACM Conf. on Functional Programming Languages and Computer Architecture (FPCA'81), ACM, 1981, pp. 171--178.

....introduce situated simplification, a general implementation scheme for such an algorithm, and instantiate the scheme with an algorithm for the case of constraints over rational trees. CCP [16] comes out of concurrent and constraint logic programming, which originated with the Relational Language [4] and with Prolog II [5] respectively. The computation model of concurrent logic programming languages [17] is based on committedchoice, a particular guard operator. In [10] the commit condition was analyzed as logical entailment. The delay mechanism in Prolog like languages as MuProlog [13, 12] ....

K.L. Clark and S. Gregory. A relational language for parallel programming. In Proc. of the ACM Conference on Functional Programming Languages and Computer Architecture, pages 171--178, 1981.

....data representation. We prove the correctness of this algorithm in both presentations, relying on our concise formal account of the logical properties of rational tree constraints. CCP [14] comes out of concurrent and constraint logic programming, which originated with the Relational Language [4] and with Prolog II [5] respectively. The computation model of concurrent logic programming languages [15] is based on committed choice, a particular guard operator. In [10] the commit condition was analyzed as logical entailment. The delay mechanism in Prolog like languages as MuProlog [12, ....

K.L. Clark and S. Gregory. A relational language for parallel programming. In Proc. of the ACM Conference on Functional Programming Languages and Computer Architecture, pages 171--178, 1981.

....collection and the destructive update of structures. 1 Concurrent Logic Programming Concurrent logic programming was born around 1980 from the study of the parallel execution of logic programs, and became an important paradigm for concurrent programming in its own right. Relational Language [3] was the first to appear in the form of a complete programming language. Guarded Horn Clauses (GHC) was designed in the Fifth Generation Computer Project in 1984 [11] after thorough examination of its predecessors Concurrent Prolog [9] and an early version of PARLOG [4] Because of its ....

Clark, K. L. and Gregory, S., A Relational Language for Parallel Programming. In Proc. ACM Conf. on Functional Programming Languages and Computer Architecture, ACM, 1981, pp. 171--178.

....called don t care nondeterminism. CCP programs are generally designed to manage a system rather than to deliver an answer to a particular problem. Applications include database management and transaction handling. CCP evolved from concurrent logic programming, introduced by Clark and Gregory [32]. Maher [109] generalized the synchronization conditions in concurrent logic programming to constraint entailment, which resulted in CCP. The term CCP is due to Saraswat, who is a major contributor to its theory [132] Shapiro [137] provides a survey of CLP languages. Constraint handling rules ....

Clark, K., and S. Gregory, A relational language for parallel programming, Proceedings, ACM Conference on Functional Languages and Computer Architecture, ACM Press (New York, 1981), 171-178.

....logical foundation) it is quite unlike any other logic programming language with which we are familiar, and in particular, it is based on 2 a novel model for concurrency in executable logic. Whereas most previous concurrent logic paradigms are based on fine grained AND OR parallelism, e.g. (Clark and Gregory, 1987)) concurrency in Concurrent METATEM is achieved via coarse grained computational entities called agents; each agent is a METATEM process. 2 Concurrent METATEM In Concurrent METATEM (Fisher, 1993) the behaviour of an agent is defined using a temporal logic formula. Temporal logic is used as, ....

Clark, K. and Gregory, S. (1987). A Relational Language for Parallel Programming. In Shapiro, E., editor, Concurrent Prolog--Collected Papers, chapter 1, pages 9--26. MIT Press.

....numbers and data structures in an operationally efficient, yet logically sound manner. Concurrent logic programming [ Shapiro, 1989 ] on the other hand, originated with This work has been supported by the Bundesminister fur Forschung und Technologie, contract ITW 9105. the Relational Language [ Clark and Gregory, 1981 ] and was promoted by the Japanese Fifth Generation Project, where logic programming was conceived as the basic system programming language and thus had to account for concurrency, synchronization and indeterminism. For this purpose, the conventional SLD resolution scheme had to be replaced with ....

K.L. Clark and S. Gregory. A relational language for parallel programming. In Proc. of the ACM Conference on Functional Programming Languages and Computer Architecture, pages 171--178, 1981.

....enough to express the following notions: 1) conditional branching, 2) nondeterministic choice, and (3) synchronization. This feature is much like CSP [Hoare 1978] but CSP provides additional constructs (input command) and (output command) for synchronization. The Relational Language [Clark and Gregory 1981] was the first to introduce the guard concept to logic programming for reasons similar to ours . However, GHC has removed the restrictions on the guard of the Relational Language together with mode declarations and annotations. 5.2. Descriptive Power We have succeeded in rewriting most of the ....

Clark, K. L. and Gregory, S. [1981] A Relational Language for Parallel Programming.

.... for example, 122] 146] 203] 174] 20] and [63] However, a different classification can be found in [20] wherein logical languages for programming with streams are divided into two groups: A) Languages based on static input output mode variable declarations for example the languages of [56] and [216] B) Languages based on dynamic variable annotations for example [55] 189] and [203] While we are not aware of any work in the literature that describes the relationship between these two classifications, it is possible to make the following general comments on the methods used to ....

K L Clark and S A Gregory. A Relational Language for Parallel Programming. In ACM Conference on Functional Programming and Computer Architecture, pages 171--178, 1981.

....and will function correctly; and modules written in other languages can be incorporated. These goals motivate the design of the Strand, PCN, CC , and Fortran M languages described below. 2. 1 Strand Design The Strand language integrates ideas from earlier work in parallel logic programming [Clark and Gregory 1981], dataflow computing [Ackerman 1982] and imperative programming [Hoare 1978] to provide a simple task parallel programming language based on four related ideas: single assignment variables, a global, shared namespace, parallel composition as the only method of program composition, and ....

....address space and to implement compositional interactions between program components. ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems, Vol. 8, No. 1, January 1999. 150 Delta Ian Foster 5. RELATED WORK The Strand design builds on work in concurrent logic programming at Imperial College [Clark and Gregory 1981; Gregory 1987; Ringwood 1988] the Weizmann Institute [Mierowsky et al. 1985; Shapiro 1987; Taylor 1989] and elsewhere. Concurrent logic programming itself has intellectual roots in logic programming [Clocksin and Mellish 1981; Kowalski 1979] functional programming [Kahn and MacQueen 1977; ....

Clark, K. and Gregory, S. 1981. A relational language for parallel programming. In Proc. 1981 ACM Conf. on Functional Programming Languages and Computer Architectures. 171--178.

....the research described so far was based on Prolog, a sequential language. Another approach would be to introduce explicit concurrency into the logic paradigm, which was done by Clark and McCabe in IC Prolog [14] and further developed by Clark and Gregory in their work on the Relational Language [15]. From this school of thought sprang three concurrent logic languages, Concurrent Prolog [60] Parlog [16] and Guarded Horn Clauses (GHC) 72] A restriction of the latter was chosen as the base language of the Japanese Fifth Generation Project. They all had in common that nondeterminism was ....

K.L. Clark, S. Gregory, A relational language for parallel programming, in Proceedings ACM Symposium on Functional Programming and Computer Architecture, 1981. f5g

.... for example, 86] 106] 150] 126] 17] and [54] However, a different classification can be found in [17] wherein logical languages for programming with streams are divided into two groups: A) Languages based on static input output mode variable declarations for example the languages of [49] and [159] B) Languages based on dynamic variable annotations for example [48] 137] and [150] While we are not aware of any work in the literature that describes the relationship between these two classifications, it is possible to make the following general comments on the methods used to ....

K L Clark and S A Gregory. A Relational Language for Parallel Programming. In ACM Conference on Functional Programming and Computer Architecture, pages 171--178, 1981.

....logic programming [13, 2] on the one hand, originated with Prolog II [6] and was prompted by the need to integrate numbers and data structures in an operationally efficient, yet logically sound manner. Concurrent logic programming [30] on the other hand, originated with the Relational Language [5] and was promoted by the Japanese Fifth Generation Project, where logic programming was conceived as the basic system programming language and thus had to account for concurrency, synchronization and indeterminism. For this purpose, the conventional SLD resolution scheme had to be replaced with a ....

K.L. Clark and S. Gregory. A relational language for parallel programming. In Proc. of the ACM Conference on Functional Programming Languages and Computer Architecture, pages 171--178, 1981.

....was once again reduced to global failure. Binding determinism was a major influence on the Reform Prolog execution model. Clark and McCabe introduced explicitly concurrent language constructs in IC Prolog [32] and further developed by Clark and Gregory in their work on the Relational Language [33]. From this school of thought sprang three concurrent logic languages, Concurrent Prolog [126] Parlog [34] and Guarded Horn Clauses (GHC) 152] A restriction of the latter was chosen as the base language of the Japanese Fifth Generation Project. They all had in common that nondeterminism was ....

K.L. Clark, S. Gregory, A relational language for parallel programming, in Proceedings ACM Symposium on Functional Programming and Computer Architecture, 1981. f21g

....responsibility for the instantiation of variables to the various subgoals of a predicate definition. Unlike descriptive modes, prescriptive modes can affect the computation rule. The original mode declarations of DEC 10 Prolog take the first view; the mode declarations of the Relational Language [8] and of Parlog 2 http: www.cs.mu.oz.au zs mercury.html [7] and to a certain extent the delay declarations of Godel [14] NU Prolog [39] and other coroutining Prologs take the second view. We believe that the second, prescriptive view is more useful. Programmers write predicates to compute ....

K. L. Clark and S. Gregory. A relational language for parallel programming. In Proceedings of the 1981 Symposium on Functional Programming and Computer Architecture, pages 171--178, Portsmouth, New Hampshire, October 1981.

....of its desired behaviour. The concept of a reactive system is therefore at the very heart of the language. Concurrent MetateM is based on a novel model for concurrency in executable logic. Whereas most previous concurrent logic paradigms are based on fine grained AND OR parallelism, e.g. [6]) concurrency in Concurrent MetateM is achieved via coarse grained computational entities called objects. Moreover, objects in Concurrent MetateM have a wellmotivated logical foundation, which is at once simple, powerful, and intuitively appealing. As a corollary of giving objects a logical ....

K. Clark and S. Gregory. A Relational Language for Parallel Programming. In E. Shapiro, editor, Concurrent Prolog--Collected Papers, chapter 1, pages 9--26. MIT Press, 1987.

....of its desired behaviour. The concept of a reactive system is therefore at the very heart of the language. Concurrent METATEM is based on a novel model for concurrency in executable logic. Whereas most previous concurrent logic paradigms are based on fine grained AND OR parallelism, e.g. [6]) concurrency in Concurrent METATEM is achieved via coarse grained computational entities called objects. Moreover, objects in Concurrent METATEM have a well motivated logical foundation, which is at once simple, powerful, and intuitively appealing. As a corollary of giving objects a logical ....

K. Clark and S. Gregory. A Relational Language for Parallel Programming. In E. Shapiro, editor, Concurrent Prolog--Collected Papers, chapter 1, pages 9--26. MIT Press, 1987.

No context found.

Keith Clark and Steve Gregory. A relational language for parallel programming. In ACM conference on Functional Programming and computer architecture, pages 171--178. ACM, 1981.

No context found.

Clark, K. and Gregory, S. (1981). A relational language for parallel programming. Res. Report DOC 81/16, Imperial College, Dept. of Computing, London.

No context found.

Clark, K. and Gregory, S. (1981). A relational language for parallel programming. Res. Report DOC 81/16, Imperial College, Dept. of Computing, London.

No context found.

Clark, K. and Gregory, S. (1981). A Relational Language for Parallel Programming. In ACM Conference on Functional Programming Languages and Computer Architecture, pages 171--178.

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