Jaffar, J., Maher, M., Marriott, K., Stuckey, P.: The semantics of constraint logic programs. Journal of Logic Programming 37(1-3) (1998) 1--46  Home/Search   Document Details and Download   Summary   Related Articles   Check

....symbols are not mutually expressible without using universal quantification. This has many consequences, such as the fact that testing satisfiability of with based formulae (constraints) is easier than for formulae of the other case. This is a criterion for choosing the admissible constraints ([15]) of a CLP language. The conjecture of this expressiveness result has been used in [11] to enlarge the class of admissible constraints of CLP (SET ) 8] However, the main consequence is perhaps an independence result of two very common equational theories for handling sets ( A b ) C ) and ....

J. Jaffar, M. Maher, K. Marriott, and P. Stuckey. The semantics of constraint logic programs. Journal of Logic Programming, 1--3(37):1--46, 1998.

....That is, gfp(T P ) T P # holds (where T P # T i=1 T P (B) Since gfp(T P ) BnGFF (P ) holds, this is sufficient to characterize ground finite failure over infinite trees (see also [22] It does not, however, yield the above theorem. For illustration, consider the example (from [15]) p(f(x) Gamma p(x) This program is canonical over finite trees. Its greatest model over finite trees assigns p the empty set. Thus p(t) 2 GFF (P ) for all finite tree t, but p(x) 62 FF (P ) in violation of the statement in the theorem. A similar remark applies to Jaffar and Stuckey s result ....

J. Jaffar, M. Maher, K. Marriot, and P. Stuckey. The semantics of constraint logic programs. J. Logic Programming. To appear.

....3. Regarding the related ongoing work, on one hand, such as we said above, the BCN operational semantics is extensible to others domains. The details of this assertion are been addressed in an incoming work but below we justify it in a sketchy way. Jaffar, Maher, Marriot and Stuckey propose in [8] a scheme in which the class of languages CLP (X ) are parameterized by the domain constraint X . The domain constraint X contains five components: the constraint domain signature Sigma X , the class of constraints LX , the domain of computation DX , the constraint theory TX and the solver solv X ....

J. Jaffar, M. Maher, K. Marriot, and P. Stukey. The semantics of constraint logic programs. The Journal of Logic Programming, (37):1--46, 1998.

....3. Regarding the related ongoing work, on one hand, such as we said above, the BCN operational semantics is extensible to others domains. The details of this assertion are been addressed in an incoming work but the idea consists on using the scheme proposed by Jaffar, Maher, Marriot and Stuckey [8]. Thus, we think the first step in extending BCN is to generalize its theoretical basis, that is, the Proposition 1, to any domain constraint X . On the other hand, we are working on refining BCN in order to detect and study those features that could be useful in developing a practical ....

J. Jaffar, M. Maher, K. Marriot, and P. Stukey. The semantics of constraint logic programs. The Journal of Logic Programming, (37):1--46, 1998.

....formula is vacuously correct , because there are no solutions found. Therefore the stronger notion of correctness and completeness obtained by requiring also the converse implication above, and loosely phrased as equivalence in an appropriate sense , is the more adequate one. 3 latter e.g. Jaffar, Maher, Marriott Stuckey (1998)) 1.3 Computing Mechanism Let us explain now the proposed computation mechanism by means of an example. Consider the formula (x = 2 x = 3) y = x 1 2 = y) 2 x = 3 y) 1.1) interpreted over the standard structure of natural numbers. Is it satisfiable The answer is yes : indeed, it ....

Jaffar, J., Maher, M., Marriott, K. & Stuckey, P. (1998), `The semantics of constraint logic programs', Journal of Logic Programming 37(1-3), 1--46.

....mortgage(P, D, I, MP, B) yields the result MP = 0.263797522 P. Theoretically, CLP preserves and extends the semantic properties of pure logic programs, such as operational, logical and fix point semantics which coincide in a natural way. Such a topic is beyond the aims of this report, but [JL87, JMMS96, AV96] are an oasis of detail for the interested reader. However, it should be mentioned here that these traditional semantics regard constraints as a special form of built in predicate. That is to say, they do not consider constraints as separate from the logic program aspect of a CLP program. ....

J. Jaffar, M. Maher, K. Marriott, and P. Stuckey. The semantics of constraint logic programs. Technical Report 96/39, University of Melbourne, November 1996.

.... For further accounts of these and many other such languages see [Coh90] and [JM94] Theoretically, CLP preserves and extends the semantic properties of pure logic programs, such as operational, logical and fix point semantics which coincide in a natural way (compare, for example, Llo87] with [JMMS96] Indeed, it is the operational semantics with which we are interested in this report and these will be studied in greater detail later. The following CLP example, which is taken from [Kri92] illustrates how constraints can be combined into the context of logic programs to provide a succinct ....

J. Jaffar, M. Maher, K. Marriott, and P. Stuckey. The semantics of constraint logic programs. Technical Report 96/39, University of Melbourne, November 1996.

No context found.

J. Jaffar, M.J. Maher, K. Marriott & P.J. Stuckey, The Semantics of Constraint Logic Programs, Journal of Logic Programming 37(1-3): 1--46 (1998)

No context found.

J. Jaffar, M.J. Maher, K. Marriott & P.J. Stuckey, The Semantics of Constraint Logic Programs, Journal of Logic Programming 37(1--3): 1--46 (1998)

....specifies completely the syntax and semantics of constraints. However, we will also need to consider the first order theory of D, which we denote by TD ; TD expresses all the first order properties of D. We have chosen to consider the complete first order theory of D here, but in some situations [19,22] an incomplete subtheory is sufficient. The Herbrand interpretation of a set of function symbols Gamma can be considered a constraint domain H( Gamma ) or simply H when Gamma is not important) The set of values is the Gamma terms, the function symbols as before produce a new term from ....

....queries, for reasons that might involve computability, tractability, or simply pragmatics. Such solvers are incomplete, and may answer true, false or unknown (i.e. don t know) The behaviour of arbitrary incomplete constraint solvers can be very irregular, so we consider the following restrictions [22], which impose a degree of structure on the behaviour of incomplete solvers. Let j= s denote ; j= s, 9 Gammax f denote the existential quantification of all variables in f except those in x, and let Q be a class of quasi orderings parameterized by Q that represents the strength of the answers ....

[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]

J. Jaffar, M.J. Maher, K.G. Marriott & P.J. Stuckey, Semantics of Constraint Logic Programs, Journal of Logic Programming, 37, 1--46, 1998.

No context found.

Jaffar, J., Maher, M., Marriott, K., Stuckey, P.: The semantics of constraint logic programs. Journal of Logic Programming 37(1-3) (1998) 1--46

No context found.

J. Jaffar, M. Maher, K. Marriot, and P. Stuckey. The Semantics of Constraint Logic Programs. Journal of Logic Programming, 37:1--46, 1998.

No context found.

J. Jaffar, M. Maher, K. Marriot, and P. Stuckey. The Semantics of Constraint Logic Programs. JLP, 37:1--46, 1998.

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