B. Jayaraman. Implementation of Subset-Equational Languages. Journal of Logic Programming, 12(4):299--324, 1992.  Home/Search   Document Not in Database   Summary   Related Articles   Check

....etc. 43, 71, 77] require recursion through inductive aggregate operations such as sum. These cannot be expressed in the current formulation of preference logic programs. We are investigating the issue of extending the paradigm with the ability to manipulate sets as in subset logic languages [41, 43, 44] to enable us to reason about generalized aggregation. Many traditional database applications such as configuration of systems and travel planning benefit from a constraint solving ability. Constraint Query Languages (CQL) were introduced by Kannelakis et al. [47] and straightforward modifications ....

....efficient pruning of sub optimal solutions. The first implementation will most likely be a meta interpreter written in a traditional logic programming language such as Prolog. To test out the ideas on memoization, we may use languages that are capable of memoization such as XSB [78, 99] and SuRE [41, 42]. Bottom up Evaluation: Traditionally, deductive databases have used a bottom up evaluation mechanism for evaluating logic programs [72] Bottom up evaluation of preference logic programming programs is also natural for many applications such as optimal parsing and dynamic programming. ....

[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]

B. Jayaraman. Implementation of Subset-Equational Languages. Journal of Logic Programming, 12(4):299--324, 1992.

....invoking magic rewriting dynamically for each different instance of the relaxation goal that appears in the body of a clause. In addition, we are also interested in extending the paradigm to incorporate inductive aggregates such as sum. This may be achieved by adding sets as a built in data type [8, 9]. The interaction of inductive aggregates and relaxation may provide interesting problems for research. Finally, the queries that we allow are first order queries and the bodies of arbiter clauses too are not allowed to have preferential goals. A very natural kind of query to allow is whether ....

B. Jayaraman. Implementation of Subset-Equational Languages. Journal of Logic Programming, 12(4):299--324, 1992.

....for f . This semantics expresses a preference for the smallest element in the partial order which is all the applicable right hand sides for f(t) The following is a simple program that computes the set of all permutations of a set, i.e. the set of all list arrangements of the set (see [Jay92] for more details on this example) perms(f g) f[ g: perms(fXnTg) distr(X; perms(T ) distr(H; fLn g) f[H jL]g: The pattern fXnTg matches a set S such that X 2 S and T = S Gamma fXg) For example, matching fXnTg with f1; 2; 3g yields three matches: fX 1; T f2; 3gg; fX 2; T f1; ....

B. Jayaraman. Implementation of Subset-Equational Languages. Journal of Logic Programming, 12(4):299--324, 1992.

....techniques to isolate the error in incorrect clauses. This technique generalizes easily and can be used to debug programs written in any logic programming language whose operational semantics is based on an immediate consequence operator. For example, programs written in languages such as SEL [Jay92] can also be debugged using the techniques described here. We have implemented a simple debugger based on ideas presented in this paper and are using that to test out the feasibility of this approach to debugging programs. ....

Bharat Jayaraman, "Implementation of Subset Equational Languages, Journal of Logic Programming, 12(4):299-324, (1992).

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