Gerth, R., Codish, M., Lichtenstein, Y., and Shapiro, E. (1988). Fully abstract denotational semantics for Concurrent Prolog. In Proc. of the Third Annual IEEE Symposium on Logic In Computer Science, pages 320--335. IEEE Computer Society Press, New York.  Home/Search   Document Not in Database   Summary   Related Articles   Check

....a particular case of the classical concurrent paradigms, like CCS and TCSP. As a consequence, the structural operational semantics and the problems of compositionaltry and full abstraction have been proached mostly by the standard methods (failure sets, trees, etc. of the semantics of concurrency [1, 2, 12, 3, 4, 8, 17, 10, 9]. We think that concurrent constraint languages require a different approach. If we compare their computational model with the one of CCS and TCSP we see a relevant difference: the communication mechanism is asynchronous, i.e. the execution of a tell do not need to synchronize with a ....

....results (the second may still deadlock [fail] while the first cannot) In our framework it is possible to solve the problem in a quite simple way. We just need to introduce a semantical lThe idea of considering arbitrary assumptions (in the framework of substitutions) has been first suggested in [10] for Flat Concurrent Prolog. However, suspension sets, although not necessary, were still present there. 2 It would be fully abstract if we considered a stronger notion of observables based on sequences of ask tell actions, similarly to what is done in [18] for the indeterminate case) but this ....

[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]

It. Gerth, M. Codish, Y. Lichtenstein, and E. Shapiro. Fully abstract denotational semantics for Concurrent Prolog. In Proc. of the Third IEEE Symposium on Logic In Computer Science, pages 320-335. IEEE Computer Society Press, New York, 1988.

....(the same is true for GHC) Differently, the atoms composing SP guards can be also user defined atoms. From a semantical point of view, Shared Prolog has a truly distributed operational semantics. Conversely, only interleaving operational semantics have been defined so far for Concurrent Prolog [32,23]. CP seems quite unnatural for the specification of systems where many to one communication is needed (e.g. a database) In fact, CP differs from Prolog (and Shared Prolog) by lacking a notion of knowledge base, so no extra logical operation like assert and retract is provided in the language. A ....

Gerth, R., Codish, M., Lichtenstein, Y., and Shapiro, E.Y. Fully Abstract Denotational Semantics for Concurrent Prolog. In Proceedings Conference on Logic in Computer Science (1988), pp.320-335.

....Logic Control paradigm ( Kw] at the meta level. In fact, several semantics of logic programming languages can be considered as generalizations of established models for imperative languages with respect to the control; the extensions made are concerned with the particular logic component. cf. [GCLS], Kk] Ba2]a. See in particular [BK] for a related approach in the setting of Concurrent Prolog. Unfortunately there is a price to pay for our two pass approach, albeit just a syntactical one. Since we restrict procedure names in B to have just one procedure body, we can consider clauses with ....

R. Gerth, M. Codish, Y. Lichtenstein, and E. Shapiro, "Fully Abstract Denotational Semantics for Concurrent Prolog," pp. 320-335 in Proc. LICS'88, Edinburgh (1988).

....: hAn ; store(c n )i = hff; store(c)i iff hstore(c) ffi 2 O[ A] 2 3.2 Compositionality of M To show the compositionality of M we define the semantic operators k and , corresponding to the parallel and to the choice operators of the language. The operator k, first introduced by Gerth et al. 1988), allows to combine sequences of assume tell constraints that are equal at each point, apart from the modes, so modeling the interaction of a process with its environment. It is similar to the more familiar interleaving operator, the difference is that it applies to sequences containing already ....

Gerth, R., Codish, M., Lichtenstein, Y., and Shapiro, E. (1988), Fully abstract denotational semantics for Concurrent Prolog, in "Proceedings, Third IEEE Symposium on Logic in Computer Science" , IEEE Computer Society Press, New York, pp. 320--335.

....y=zg for G 1 , and oe = fz=ag for G 2 . If we look now to the whole goal G, its intended semantics should contain # 2 oe = fx=a; y=a; z=ag, but not # 1 oe = fx=y; z=yg. The problem of compositionality in the semantics of concurrent logic languages has been addressed in [16] 2] 20] 3] 4] [11]. An approach to solve this problem is to replace the notion of substitution by the one of equation set. This possibility is based on the remark that substitutions are essentially used, in logic programming, as most general unifiers, i.e. for representing the general solutions to questions of the ....

R. Gerth, M. Codish, Y. Lichtenstein, and E. Shapiro. Fully abstract denotational semantics for Concurrent Prolog. In Proc. of the Third IEEE Symposium on Logic In Computer Science, pages 320--335. IEEE Computer Society Press, New York, 1988.

.... renaming, i.e. subsets of [Clause] For simplicity of exposition, we will abuse notation and assume that a clause represents its equivalence class and write Clause rather than [Clause] We focus on logic programs which are constructed from predicate disjoint modules (considered also in [15, 17]) If P 1 ; P n are logic program modules, then P = n [ i=1 P i is a modular logic program. A modular logic program is predicate disjoint if the predicates defined in each module are disjoint from those defined in the others. For logic program (or module) P , open(P) denotes the set ....

R. Gerth, M. Codish, Y. Lichtenstein, and E. Shapiro. Fully abstract denotational semantics for Concurrent Prolog. In Proc. Third IEEE Symp. on Logic In Computer Science, pp. 320-- 335. IEEE Computer Society Press, 1988.

.... renaming, i.e. subsets of [Clause] For simplicity of exposition, we will abuse notation and assume that a clause represents its equivalence class and write Clause rather than [Clause] We focus on logic programs which are constructed from predicate disjoint modules (considered also in [15,17]) If P 1 ; P n are logic program modules, then P = n [ i=1 P i is a modular logic program. A modular logic program is predicate disjoint if the predicates defined in each module are disjoint from those defined in the others. For logic program (or module) P , open(P) denotes the set ....

R. Gerth, M. Codish, Y. Lichtenstein, and E. Shapiro. Fully abstract denotational semantics for Concurrent Prolog. In Proc. Third IEEE Symp. on Logic In Computer Science, pp. 320-- 335. IEEE Computer Society Press, 1988.

No context found.

Gerth, R., Codish, M., Lichtenstein, Y., and Shapiro, E. (1988). Fully abstract denotational semantics for Concurrent Prolog. In Proc. of the Third Annual IEEE Symposium on Logic In Computer Science, pages 320--335. IEEE Computer Society Press, New York.

No context found.

Gerth, R., Codish, M., Lichtenstein, Y., and Shapiro, E. (1988). Fully abstract denotational semantics for Concurrent Prolog. In Proc. of the 56 Concurrent Logic and Concurrent Constraint Programming Third Annual IEEE Symposium on Logic In Computer Science, pages 320--335. IEEE Computer Society Press, New York.

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