G.M. Kuper, On the Expressive Power of Logic Programming Languages with Sets, Proc. ACM PODS, 10--14, 1988. 71 Home/Search Document Details and Download
Summary Related Articles Check |
This paper is cited in the following contexts:
On The Power Of Languages For The Manipulation Of Complex Values - Abiteboul, Beeri (1995) (27 citations) (Correct)
....In the rule based paradigm, nesting can be expressed in many ways. Indeed, a main difference between various proposals of logic programming with a set construct is in their approach to nesting: grouping in LDL [15] data functions in COL [3] and a form of universal quantification in [42] In [43], equivalence of various rule based languages is proved. In [31] it is shown that various programming primitives are interchangeable: powerset, fixpoint, various iterators. As already mentioned, the current paper emphasizes a general approach to extending existing languages to new models. This ....
G.M. Kuper, On the Expressive Power of Logic Programming Languages with Sets, Proc. ACM PODS, 10--14, 1988. 71
Tractable Query Languages for Complex Object Databases - Grumbach (1995) (17 citations) (Correct)
....grants IRI 8816078 and INT 8817874. Languages for complex objects which have been proposed are roughly of three types: extensions of relational calculus [Jac82, AB87, KV84, KRS85] extensions of relational algebra [AB87, AB86, FT83, KV84, SS86] and deductive languages [AG88, BNR 87, Kup87, Kup88] They all use higher order types. Previous investigations of their expressive power have focused on the gain in expressivity resulting from the use of higher order types, when queries are applied to flat databases [HS88, KV88] In this case, the use of higher order types results in very high ....
G.M. Kuper. On the expressive power of logic Programming languages with Sets. In Proc. 7th ACM Symp. on Principles of Database Systems, 1988.
Programming with Equations, Subsets, and Relations - Jayaraman, Plaisted (1989) (Correct)
....of their use in practice. We would also like to relax our restrictions on finite sets, eager reduction, and first order terms, and examine the semantic and implementation issues of the resulting language. There has been considerable interest in the use of sets in functional and logic programming [W83, T85, DFP86, JS86, BNRST87, JP87, R87, K88, SJ89]. It is easy to show that subset equational programs can be used directly encode the relative set construct of Miranda [T85] while subsetrelational programs can express the absolute set construct of Darlington [DFP86] and Robinson [R87] The paradigms discussed in this paper, however, do not ....
....and lazy evaluation in their present development. An interesting use of lazy rewriting is discussed in [N89] where it is shown how one can prune (by lazy evaluation) the generation of elements of a set that is defined via nonconfluent rewrite rules. Quantifiers over sets are described in [K88], and, as discussed earlier, a collect all capability is provided in [BNRST87] through the use of a grouping construct. In comparison with these approaches, the novel idea of subsetequational and subset relational programming is that very concise, clear and efficient programs can be obtained ....
G.M. Kuper, "On the Expressive Power of Logic Programming Languages with Sets," In 7th ACM PODS, pp. 10-14, 1988.
Chapter 20: Complex Values - Abiteboul, Hull, Vianu (1995) (Correct)
No context found.
G.M. Kuper. On the expressive power of logic programming languages with sets. In Proc. ACM Symp. on Principles of Database Systems, pages 10--14, 1988.
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