M. Falaschi, G. Levi, and C. Palamidessi. A synchronization logic: Axiomatics and formal semantics of generalized Horn clauses. Information and Control, 60(1--3):36--69, 1984.  Home/Search   Document Not in Database   Summary   Related Articles   Check

....been partially supported by the Grant Agency of Czech Republic grant No. 201 00 0400. of the store and have studied compositional and fully abstract semantics for them. On the other hand, Saraswat proposed a synchronisation mechanism in ( 10] BrieAEy, his proposal and many related ones (e.g. [6]) are based on a coding of an explicit operator to achieve synchrony. This should be contrasted with the classical concurrent constraint framework in which asynchronous communication is simply obtained by the blocking of ask primitives when information on the store is not complete enough to entail ....

M. Falaschi, G. Levi, and Catuscia Palamidessi. A Synchronization Logic: Axiomatics and Formal Semantics of Generalized Horn Clauses. Information and Control, 60:3669, 1994.

....has been partially supported by the Grant Agency of Czech Republic grant No. 201 00 0400. of the store and have studied compositional and fully abstract semantics for them. On the other hand, Saraswat proposed a synchronisation mechanism in ( 10] Brie y, his proposal and many related ones (e.g. [6]) are based on a coding of an explicit operator to achieve synchrony. This should be contrasted with the classical concurrent constraint framework in which asynchronous communication is simply obtained by the blocking of ask primitives when information on the store is not complete enough to entail ....

M. Falaschi, G. Levi, and Catuscia Palamidessi. A Synchronization Logic: Axiomatics and Formal Semantics of Generalized Horn Clauses. Information and Control, 60:36-69, 1994.

....considered, then, in general, abstract semantics would not turn out to be a congruence unless transitions for external contexts are added. Indeed, we believe that our approach can be extended to other frameworks where multi head clauses are allowed (see for example the generalized Horn clauses of (Falaschi et al. 1984) and the CHR formalism (Fruhwirth, 1995) giving us the key for dealing with contextualization features dually to the instantiation via pullbacks considered here. We have also sketched some ideas for extending our approach to handle constraints. In this case, the constraint system and the ....

Falaschi, M., Levi, G., & Palamidessi, C. (1984). A synchronization logic: Axiomatics and formal semantics of generalized horn clauses. Information and control, 60(1-3), 36--69.

....; cexch(X) pexch( H Tp] Pi cexch( H Tc] prod(Tp) Pi cons(Tc) The reader will appreciate the ease of coding as opposed to that obtained by using the asynchronous communication of usual concurrent logic programming languages. Other examples have been programmed in [Br90] DD83] [FLP84], Mo81] Mo82] and [Sa89] to further substantiate the above claim. Among them are semaphores, the seminal dining philosophers problem, generative communication in a Linda style and object oriented programming. 2 We turn in this paper to the semantic analysis of generalized Horn clauses, ....

....to take place (suspension) The denotational semantics Den, defined as usual compositionally, further details the computation by handling hypotheses about the environment of goals. Generalized Horn clauses have already been presented in similar forms in [AP90] Br90] Co88] DD83] [FLP84], Mo81] Mo82] and [Sa89] The work reported here differs from them both from the language point of view and from the semantic point of view. From the language point of view, our language differs in two main respects. Firstly, it allows arbitrary sequential and parallel compositions inside ....

[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]

Falaschi M., Levi G., Palamidessi C., A Synchronization Logic: Axiomatic and Formal Semantics of Generalized Horn Clauses, Information and Control, 60, 1-3, 1984, pp. 36-39. 19

....whose constraint argument c is entailed by the current store are reduced without partners. This framework, called Scc, is presented in [1, 2] and its expressiveness has been demonstrated through the coding of a variety of examples. It has been argued that one advantage over related work such as [12, 8, 6], which introduce synchronisation by special operators and not by altering the behaviour of tell and ask primitives, is that Scc permits the specification of on what information the synchronisation should be made, rather than with whom. Synchronisation in Scc is thus data oriented as opposed to ....

M. Falaschi, G. Levi, and C. Palamidessi. A Synchronization Logic: Axiomatics and Formal Semantics of Generalized Horn Clauses. Information and Control, 60:36--69, 1994.

....whose constraint argument c is entailed by the current store are reduced without partners. This framework, called Scc, is presented in [1, 2] and its expressiveness has been demonstrated through the coding of a variety of examples. It has been argued that one advantage over related work such as [12, 8, 6], which introduce synchronisation by special operators and not by altering the behaviour of tell and ask primitives, is that Scc permits the speci Thetacation of on what information the synchronisation should be made, rather than with whom. Synchronisation in Scc is thus data oriented as opposed ....

M. Falaschi, G. Levi, and C. Palamidessi. A Synchronization Logic: Axiomatics and Formal Semantics of Generalized Horn Clauses. Information and Control, 60:36#69, 1994.

....the absence of suitable concurrent goals that would allow synchronization to take place (suspension) In particular, the latter point is tackled by handling suitable hypotheses about the environment of goals. Extended Horn clauses have already been presented in similar forms in [2] 3] 4] 8] [10], 16] 17] and [19] The work reported here differs from them both from the language point of view and from the semantic point of view. From the language point of view, our language differs in three main respects. Firstly, it allows arbitrary sequential and parallel compositions inside goals as ....

....4 denoting the empty conjunction of atoms. From the semantic point of view, our work differs both from related work issued from the logic programming tradition and from the metric imperative tradition. To our best knowledge, semantics for extended Horn clauses have only been proposed in [2] 3] [10] and [16] The semantics presented in [2] essentially refers to a new logic, called linear logic ( 11] It thus differs from our declarative and metric based semantics. In [3] and [10] the study of the declarative semantics is also conducted in terms of an extension of the Herbrand base ....

[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]

M. Falaschi, G. Levi, and C. Palamidessi. A Synchronization Logic: Axiomatics and Formal Semantics of Generalized Horn Clauses. Information and Control, 60:36--69, 1984.

....for both its sequential and parallel versions. As noted in [8] finding a way to represent parallel and non deterministic actions is a real challenge, to which we believe to have given a solution. Finally, this paper grew up as a continuation of our previous work [15, 16] and its related work [5, 9]. As already suggested, one difference with this work is the clear separation between resource handling and logical treatment. As an interesting consequence, resource need not be considered as active data when they are not actually. Compare for instance the stack example of section 2 and that of ....

....consequence, resource need not be considered as active data when they are not actually. Compare for instance the stack example of section 2 and that of [15] Moreover, the semantics are quite different from that presented in previously cited work. On the one hand, with respect to [5] and [9], one should note that, in addition to the richer context of pre and post conditions handled here, arbitrary mixing of sequential and parallel compositions inside goals are treated here as well as an unrestricted form of variable sharing. On the other hand, pre and post conditions handling and ....

M. Falaschi, G. Levi, and C. Palamidessi. A Synchronization Logic: Axiomatics and Formal Semantics of Generalized Horn Clauses. Information and Control, 60:36--69, 1984.

....as simple as possible as well as in the main streams of logic programming semantics. However, communicating clauses and synchronized executions raise new problems, for which fresh solutions are proposed. Communicating clauses have already been presented in similar forms in [1] 2] 3] 6] [7], 13] 14] 15] 16] and [20] in the classical logic programming framework. As already said, this paper is a continuation of our previous work [13, 14] In those papers, synchronous communication is expressed in a global and centralized way by extending classical Horn clauses. In contrast, ....

....1 : u 1 g and u 1 : A 1 A 3 fA 2 : u 2 g u 2 : A 2 A 4 k A 5 fA 1 : u 1 g; with 4 denoting the empty conjunction of atoms. Our work also differs from related work at the semantic standpoint. To our best knowledge, semantics for communicating Horn clauses have only been proposed in [1] 2] [7] and [15] A first difference with them is that contextual logic programming is tackled here. This requires novel extensions, as exposed in [12] These extensions discarded, our semantics still presents several differences. The semantics presented in [1] essentially refers to a new logic, called ....

[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]

M. Falaschi, G. Levi, and C. Palamidessi. A Synchronization Logic: Axiomatics and Formal Semantics of Generalized Horn Clauses. Information and Control, 60:36--69, 1984.

....inherent in the formalism provides for an asynchronous concurrent computation. Multiple heads Horn clauses have been studied in the past out of linear logic (with set theoretical characterizations in mind instead of the monoidal ones proper of linear logic, semantically speaking) in particular in [6, 9]. A recent linear logic programming (object oriented) language, which is a superset of ours, is LO [3] 3 Adding a sequentiality mechanism: the language SMR Multiset rewriting is a powerful computational formalism. In this section we present SMR (Structured Multiset Rewriting) a language whose ....

Moreno Falaschi, Giorgio Levi, and Catuscia Palamidessi. A synchronization logic: Axiomatics and formal semantics of generalized Horn clauses. Information and Control, 60:36--69, 1984.

....possible efficient implementations in parallel environments. An important feature of the language is its ability to express in a simple way the synchronization and the communication between different computational flows, opening the way to distributed programming, as has already been shown in [11] and [8] for similar languages. In our case however we have a declarative semantics for the symmetrical interactions. In fact in the last part of the paper we propose a semantics for the language obtained by instantiating the phase semantics of linear logic. The resulting abstract structure ....

....semantics for the language obtained by instantiating the phase semantics of linear logic. The resulting abstract structure associated to programs allows to declaratively model the behaviour of our computations. By exploiting the similarities of our fragment with the language of Generalized Clauses [11, 8], a fixpoint characterization of the phase semantics is also presented. The paper is organized as follows. In subsection 1.1 we introduce linear logic and its proof system. In section 1.2 we introduce the definition of uniformity for multiple conclusions sequent systems. Section 2 shows the ....

[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]

M. Falaschi, G. Levi, and C. Palamidessi. A Synchronization Logic: Axiomatics and Formal Semantics of Generalized Horn Clauses. Information and Control, 60(1):36--69, 1984.

....is made slightly more general by permitting the synchronisation of more than two partners. This framework, called Scc, is presented in [4] and its expressiveness has been demonstrated through the coding of a variety of examples. It has been argued that one advantage over related work such as [18, 13, 1, 5, 11], which introduce synchronisation by special operators and not by altering the behaviour of tell and ask primitives, is that Scc permits the specification of on what information the synchronisation should be made, rather than with whom. Synchronisation in Scc is thus data oriented as opposed to ....

M. Falaschi, G. Levi, and Catuscia Palamidessi. A Synchronization Logic: Axiomatics and Formal Semantics of Generalized Horn Clauses. Information and Control, 60:36--69, 1994.

....is made slightly more general by permitting the synchronisation of more than two partners. This framework, called Scc, is presented in [3] and its expressiveness has been demonstrated through the coding of a variety of examples. It has been argued that one advantage over related work such as [12, 9, 8], which introduce synchronisation by special operators and not by altering the behaviour of tell and ask primitives, is that Scc permits the specification of on what information the synchronisation should be made, rather than with whom. Synchronisation in Scc is thus data oriented as opposed to ....

M. Falaschi, G. Levi, and C. Palamidessi. A Synchronization Logic: Axiomatics and Formal Semantics of Generalized Horn Clauses. Information and Control, 60:36--69, 1994.

....for both its sequential and parallel versions. As noted in [8] finding a way to represent parallel and non deterministic actions is a real challenge, to which we believe to have given a solution. Finally, this paper grew up as a continuation of our previous work [15, 16] and its related work [9, 5]. As already suggested, one difference with this work is the clear separation between resource handling and logical treatment. As an interesting consequence, resource need not be considered as active data when they are not actually. Compare for instance the stack example of section 2 and that of ....

....As an interesting consequence, resource need not be considered as active data when they are not actually. Compare for instance the stack example of section 2 and that of [15] Moreover, the semantics are quite different from that presented in previously cited work. On the one hand, with respect to [9] and [5] one should note that, in addition to the richer context of pre and post conditions handled here, arbitrary mixing of sequential and parallel compositions inside goals are treated here as well as an unrestricted form of variable sharing. On the other hand, pre and post conditions ....

M. Falaschi, G. Levi, and C. Palamidessi. A Synchronization Logic: Axiomatics and Formal Semantics of Generalized Horn Clauses. Information and Control, 60:36--69, 1984.

....goal. More transformations can be applied concurrently to the multiset, thus making possible efficient implementations in parallel environments. The rewriting of a multiset of logical formulas is amenable to simple interpretations in terms of process synchronization and communication, as shown in [14] and in [10] We think that this provides a declarative notion of symmetrical communication and open the way to distributed programming. In the last part of the paper we propose a semantics for the language obtained by instantiating the phase semantics of linear logic. The resulting abstract ....

....language obtained by instantiating the phase semantics of linear logic. The resulting abstract structure associated to programs allows to declaratively model the transformational behaviour of our computations. By exploiting the similarities of our fragment with the language of Generalized Clauses [14, 10], a declarative semantics modeling answer substitutions is also presented. The paper is organized as follows. In subsection 1.1 we introduce linear logic and its proof system. In section 1.2 we introduce the definition of uniformity for multiple conclusions sequent systems. Section 3 shows the ....

[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]

M. Falaschi, G. Levi, and C. Palamidessi. A Synchronization Logic: Axiomatics and Formal Semantics of Generalized Horn Clauses. Information and Control, 60(1):36--69, 1984.

....On the one hand, de Boer et al. 3] has proposed non monotonic updates of the store and have studied compositional and fully abstract semantics for them. On the other hand, Saraswat proposed a synchronisation mechanism in his thesis ( 12] Briefly, his proposal as well as related ones ([10, 1, 2, 6]) are based on the idea of enriching clauses by multiple heads and bodies. They require for the purpose of reduction the presence of concurrent atoms which simultaneously unify with the heads. Synchronicity is thus expressed in these proposals through the coding of an explicit operator. This ....

M. Falaschi, G. Levi, and Catuscia Palamidessi. A Synchronization Logic: Axiomatics and Formal Semantics of Generalized Horn Clauses. Information and Control, 60:36--69, 1994.

No context found.

M. Falaschi, G. Levi, and C. Palamidessi. A synchronization logic: Axiomatics and formal semantics of generalized Horn clauses. Information and Control, 60(1--3):36--69, 1984.

No context found.

Falaschi, M., Levi, G., and Palamidessi, C. (1984). A synchronization logic: Axiomatics and formal semantics of generalized Horn clauses. Information and Control, 60(6):36--69.

No context found.

Falaschi, M., Levi, G., and Palamidessi, C. (1984). A synchronization logic: Axiomatics and formal semantics of generalized Horn clauses. Information and Control, 60(6):36--69.

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