Dale Miller. A theory of modules for logic programming. In Robert M. Keller, editor, Third Annual IEEE Symposium on Logic Programming, pages 106--114, Salt Lake City, Utah, September 1986.  Home/Search   Document Not in Database   Summary   Related Articles   Check

....proof theory and defines the semantics of programs as inductively defined sets. They model non ground answer substitutions directly, not as the set of ground instances. Their language of Generalized Horn Clauses resembles earlier proposals for permitting nested implications in clause bodies [20, 33], but they obtain a much simpler treatment of free variables by distinguishing assumptions from program clauses. Nested implication falls outside the framework of monotone inductive definitions (as remarked above) but programs can be understood as partial inductive definitions [24] Their ....

Miller, D., A theory of modules for logic programming, In Symposium on Logic Programming (1986), ieee Comp. Soc. Press, pp. 106--114

.... build an algebra of programs, in which composition operators are available for combining two programs into a single one (cf. 19, 45] The other direction resorts to using concepts of modal logic and embedded implications for defining the meaning of subgoals which access external functions (cf. [42]) Both approaches, however, have problems in handling negation, and typically, negation is disregarded for combined programs. This is a severe shortcoming, since negation is an indispensable element of a logic based programming language to be sufficiently expressive for solving problems in ....

D. Miller. A Theory of Modules in Logic Programming. In Proceedings of the International Logic Programming Symposium (ILPS '86), pages 106--114. MIT Press, 1986.

....ning subprograms must be supported, which may be referred to at di erent places in a program. This requires appropriate scoping and abstraction mechanisms for program modules. This need has initiated a large number of investigations, which evolved into the area of modular logic programming, e.g. [32, 35, 29, 17, 22, 5]; see [5] for a comprehensive survey. The research on logic programming with modules has followed two mainstreams [5] The one is programming in the large, where compositional operators are provided for combining separate and independent modules, e.g. 35, 29, 17] Here, the approach is to provide ....

....which allow to algebraically combine programs, which does not need for an extension of the theory of logic programs. The other direction is programmingin the small, which aims at enhancing logic programming with abstraction and scoping mechanism available in other programming paradigms, e.g. [32, 22]. This approach fosters the introduction of new logical connectives in an extended logical language. Thus, the two mainstreams are quite divergent; nontheless, a uniform reconstruction of them has been attempted in [5] Both approaches su er from certain problems, and a number of important issues ....

[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]

D. Miller. A Theory of Modules in Logic Programming. In Proceedings of the International Logic Programming Symposium (ILPS '86), pages 106-114. MIT Press, 1986.

....stable models, expressive power 1 Introduction Structured Logic Programming requires the possibility to define subprograms along with scoping and abstraction mechanisms. This need has initiated a large number of investigations, which evolved into the area of modular logic programming, e.g. [26, 29, 23, 14, 17, 4]; see [4] for a comprehensive survey. The research on systems of logic program modules has followed two mainstreams [4] The one is programming in the large, where compositional operators are provided for combining separate and independent modules, e.g. 29, 23, 14] Extended Abstract, with ....

....which allow to algebraically combine programs, which does not need for an extension of the theory of logic programs. The other direction is programming in the small, which aims at enhancing logic programming with abstraction and scoping mechanisms available in other programming paradigms, e.g. [26, 17]. This approach fosters the introduction of new logical connectives in an extended logical language. Thus, the two mainstreams are quite divergent. Both approaches suffer from certain problems, and a number of important issues in modular logic programming remains to be satisfactorily answered ....

D. Miller. A Theory of Modules in Logic Programming. In Proc. ILPS '86, pp. 106--114. 1986.

....mechonisms richer thon those offered by Horn clouses orose. The ideo is to model the operotors for building ond composing modules directly in terms of the logicol connectives of o logic longuoge defined os on extension of Horn clouses. This wos introduced by Miller with implicotionol gools in [50]. Unfortunotely, this technique is not oppropriote for dotobose since it extend only temporory the progroin with modules defined in the gool ond ofter gool evoluotion such modules ore discorded. Other opprooches considering concurrency ( 8, 57] ore not explicitly considered due to o rother ....

D. Miller. A Theory of Modules for Logic Programming. In Proc. IEEE Symposium on Logic Programming, pages 106 114, 1986.

....components. For instance, Typed Prolog def = Prolog simple types defines a strongly typed variant of Prolog as proposed by Lakshman and Reddy [27] CLP( def = Prolog terms simple types = fffi 3 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 Higher order LP [40] 41, 46] 47] Modules [37] [35] 36] G [37] 41, 43] 42] 8G [43] 33] 42] Decidable higher order unification [34] 38] Abstract syntax [32] Unification and quantification [39] TABLE 1.1. A bibliography map defines an instance of the scheme CLP [9] for the domain of the simply typed terms endowed with the ....

.... Typed Prolog def = Prolog simple types defines a strongly typed variant of Prolog as proposed by Lakshman and Reddy [27] CLP( def = Prolog terms simple types = fffi 3 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 Higher order LP [40] 41, 46] 47] Modules [37] 35] 36] G [37] [41, 43] 42] 8G [43] 33] 42] Decidable higher order unification [34] 38] Abstract syntax [32] Unification and quantification [39] TABLE 1.1. A bibliography map defines an instance of the scheme CLP [9] for the domain of the simply typed terms endowed with the equivalence relation = ....

[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]

D.A. Miller. A theory of modules for logic programming. In Symp. Logic Programming, pages 106--115, Salt Lake City, UT, USA, 1986.

....union etc. to perform program composition. This approach, first introduced in [O K85] have been followed by various researchers [Bro93, BMPT90, MP88] In the second approach, the language of Horn clauses has been extended to allow implication goals in the bodies. The pioneer work is presented in [Mil86] and the work in [MP89] is an eminent one. In [Bug92] an attempt was made to combine the two approaches, proposing SelfLog, a framework where both paradigms co exist. The paper is organized as follows. In Section 2, some information concerning the background of the framework is presented. In ....

D. Miller. A theory of modules for logic programming. In Proceedings of the 1986 Symposium on Logic Programming, pages 106--114, 1986.

....performed on the program. Recently we have studied how structuring facilities, like blocks and modules, can be introduced in logic programming languages by making use of modal extensions [9, 2] In particular, in [9] we have focused on a language with embedded implications, like the languages in [7, 6, 14, 12, 8]. These languages allow implications of the form D G to occur both in goals and in clause bodies, and this provides a way of introducing local definitions of clauses: the clauses in D are intended to be local to the goal G, as they can be used only in a proof of G. The meaning of hypothetical ....

....semantics. The logic programming language presented in this abstract is a modal logic refinement of hereditary Harrop formulas [17] and it lies on the same line as other logic programming languages which are not based on classical first order logic, like those based on intuitionistic logic [7, 6, 12, 13, 14, 16, 15] higher order logic [17] and linear logic [11] This language we define subsumes the languages defined in [9, 2] so that it allows both to define module constructs and to perform hypothetical reasoning. Moreover it provides a simple way to formulate reasoning capabilities in a multiple agent ....

D. Miller. A theory of modules for logic programming. In Proc. IEEE Symp. on Logic Programming, pages 106--114, September 1986.

....in Proc. 1993 ACM Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages. This research was supported in part by CEC DGIII EC Israel collaborative activity, ISC IL 90 PARFORCE 1 the entire program. Semantic treatments of modules in logic programs have been given by a number of authors (e.g. see [5, 29]) typically based on nontrivial extensions to Horn clause logic that lead to complex semantics; it appears to us that the development of abstract interpretations based on such semantics is not entirely straightforward. The semantics we consider here as a basis for abstract interpretations is a ....

....with program modules. Gaifmann et al. propose to adopt clauses as semantic objects in order to characterize partial computations (from the head to the body) and to enable different notions of composition. Logical semantics for modules in logic programs have been proposed by a number of authors [5, 29]. These are typically based on various extensions to Horn logic: for example, Chen s treatment of modules [5] is based on secondorder logic, while Miller s [29] uses implication goals in clause bodies. In [12] Comini et al. define 11 a taxonomy of semantics that can be derived by abstracting SLD ....

[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]

D. Miller. A Theory of Modules for Logic Programming. In Proceedings IEEE Symposium on Logic Programming, pages 106--114, 1986.

....recognising that some representation already exists and reusing it. Folding amounts to recognising that two different representations represent the same thing and replacing one by the other. We assume a basic knowledge of Prolog and Prolog. 2 Introduction The logic programming language Prolog [28, 27, 29, 15, 13, 26, 14, 30] improves greatly on standard Prolog because it features very powerful operations on terms and programs while still giving them a logical semantics. A keyword common to all these features is scoping. terms introduce scoping at the term level, explicit quantifications (universal and existential) ....

D.A. Miller. A theory of modules for logic programming. In Symp. Logic Programming, pages 106--115, Salt Lake City, UT, USA, 1986.

....modules defining abstract relations such as transitivity. The parameterised module system described here extends the module system in Godel so as to provide better facilities for defining abstract relations in re usable modules. Other authors have investigated modules for logic programming. [Miller, 1986] extends Prolog to provide a theory of modules over Horn clauses. The modules are defined by nested implication with the semantics based on intuitionistic logic. In this module system, the modules are dynamic in the sense that they are created and deleted at run time. Thus a modification of ....

D.A. Miller. A theory of modules for logic programming. In IEEE Symposium on Logic Programming, pages 106--115, 1986.

....nouveaut es de Prolog comme les types, la fi r eduction et la suspension de l unification. Mots cl e : Impl ementation, Programmation logique, Prolog, Gestion de m emoire, Mali The Architecture of an Implementation of Prolog: Prolog Mali 3 1 Introduction The logic programming language Prolog [30, 29, 31, 17, 15, 28, 16, 32] improves on standard Prolog because it features more powerful operations on terms and programs while still giving them a logical semantics. A keyword common to all these features is scoping. Terms introduce scoping at the term level, explicit quantifications (universal and existential) introduce ....

D.A. Miller. A theory of modules for logic programming. In Symp. Logic Programming, pages 106--115, Salt Lake City, UT, USA, 1986.

....And both of them are susceptible to the approaches sketched above, though work in these areas is less well developed. Existing approaches to higher type logic programming essentially amount to allowing implications to appear within program bodies, thus permitting a kind of modular structure [28]. Such embedded implications have behavioral similarities with intuitionistic implication, and as such have been investigated in [26,27] Either an intuitionistic version of negation, or negation as failure can be added. If negation as failure is added, a three valued approach seems most natural, ....

Miller, D. A theory of modules for logic programming. In IEEE Symposium on Logic Programming (1986), pp. 106--114.

....it was the one most familiar to readers, and we felt it adequately represented the whole class of examples. 7 Embedded implications In [8] a three valued semantics was given for a logic programming language containing embedded implications and negation as failure. This built on earlier work of [13], and was related to [11, 12] In this section we show how logic programming with embedded implications can be generalized naturally to the bilattice context in a way that, when specialized to the consistent part of Belnap s logic, coincides with the semantics of [8] In addition, once put into ....

Miller, D. A theory of modules for logic programming. In IEEE Symposium on Logic Programming (1986), pp. 106--114.

....by the rule: near grad(S) course(C) student(S) grad(S) take(S; C) Intuitively this rule states that student s is nearly a graduate if there exists some course c such that, if the student took this course, then he could graduate. Intuitionistic semantics for such programs can be found in [Mil86, BM90, GO92]. Roughly speaking, to establish the derivability of near grad(s) in the corresponding intuitionistic program Pi 1 under this semantic one should add the rule take(s; c) to Pi 1 and then try to prove grad(s) As noticed in [BMPT92] similar meaning can be naturally expressed via the use of ....

D. Miller. A theory of modules in logic programming. In Proc. of IEEE Symposium on Logic Programming, pages 106--114, 1986.

....inspired by O keefe (1985) suggests a meta linguistic mechanism: modules are viewed as sets of Horn clauses and their composition is modeled in terms of operations on the components (such as union, deletion, closure etc. The other approach, known as programming in the small and originating with Miller (1986; 1989) enhances logic programming with linguistic abstraction mechanisms that are richer than those offered by Horn clauses (see Bugliesi, Lamma, and Mello (1994) for a review of modularity in logic programming) Unlike O keefe (1985) who defines the denotation of a program to be the ....

Miller, D. 1986. A theory of modules in logic programming. In Proceedings of the symposium on logic programming, pages 106--114.

.... an Object Oriented Logic Programming Language (extended abstract) Giorgio Delzanno, Maurizio Martelli DISI Universit a di Genova, Via Dodecaneso, 35, I 16146 Genova, Italy e mail:fgiorgio,martellig disi.unige.it http: www.disi.unige.it staff giorgio giorgio.html 1 Introduction In [2, 7, 6, 11, 12, 14] higher order intuitionistic and linear logic have been applied in order to define extensions to logic programming languages providing primitives for structuring programs. In particular, higher order linear logic results to be well suited to describe computations based on state transitions as ....

D. Miller. A Theory of Modules in Logic Programming. In Proceedings of International Symposium on Logic Programming, 106--114,1986.

....relatively recent development. Two orthogonal directions of structuring can be observed in logic programming: modularization (structuring of programs) and sorting (structuring of data, i.e. grouping of individuals; sort type) As examples of research in the direction of modularization, we mention [Mil86] and [Che87] In a number of studies, modules are viewed as worlds, with more or less explicit parallels drawn to the possible worlds semantics of modal logics. From among the merger systems, mentioned in Section 2.1, Prolog KR, Mandala and CPU take this approach. From proper modal extensions of ....

D. Miller. A theory of modules for logic programming. In Proc. 1986 Symp. on Logic Programming, Salt Lake City, Sept 1986, pp 106-14. Washington, DC: IEEE Comp. Soc. Press, 1986.

....by the rule: near grad(S) course(C) student(S) grad(S) take(S; C) Intuitively this rule states that student s is nearly a graduate if there exists some course c such that, if the student took this course, then he could graduate. Intuitionistic semantics for such programs can be found in [Mil86, BM90, GO92]. Roughly speaking, to establish the derivability of near grad(s) in the corresponding intuitionistic program 5 1 under this semantic one should add the rule take(s; c) to 5 1 and then try to prove grad(s) As noticed in [BMPT92] similar meaning can be naturally expressed via the use of ....

D. Miller. A theory of modules in logic programming. In Proc. of IEEE Symposium on Logic Programming, pages 106--114, 1986.

.... logic [39, 12] and, in particular, it has been tackled by extending the language of Horn clauses with implications embedded in goals, as proposed in [36, 38, 26, 25] see [11] for a survey of the different approaches) Languages with embedded implications have been extensively studied [22, 19, 34, 32]. These languages allow implications of the form D G to occur both in goals and in clause bodies, and this provides a way of introducing local definitions of clauses: the clauses in D are intended to be local to the goal G, as they can be used only in a proof of G. The meaning of embedded ....

....in our language. The logic programming language presented in this paper is a modal logic refinement of hereditary Harrop formulas [37] and it lies on the same line as other logic programming languages which are not based on classical first order logic, like those based on intuitionistic logic [22, 19, 32, 33, 34, 36, 35] higher order logic [37] and linear logic [29] The modal logic on which the language is based is a multi agent version of K with a weaker version of the common knowledge operator presented in [28] We define a Kripke semantics and a cut free sequent calculus for this logic, and, then, we provide ....

D. Miller. A theory of modules for logic programming. In Proc. IEEE Symp. on Logic Programming, pages 106--114, September 1986.

....systems that can be used as a basis of logic programming and that contain natural notions of scope for program clauses and constants. For example, the logic of hereditary Harrop formulas, parts of which were developed independently by Gabbay and Reyle [GR84] McCarty [McC88a, McC88b] and Miller [Mil86, Mil89b, Mil90], allows for a simple stack based structuring of the runtime program and set of constants. The modal logic of Giordano, Martelli, and Rossi [GMR88] provides an interesting variation on hereditary Harrop formulas that has a different runtime structuring of programs. A recent linear logic refinement ....

Dale Miller. A theory of modules for logic programming. In Robert M. Keller, editor, Third Annual IEEE Symposium on Logic Programming, pages 106--114, Salt Lake City, Utah, September 1986.

No context found.

Dale Miller. A theory of modules for logic programming. In Robert M. Keller, editor, Third Annual IEEE Symposium on Logic Programming, pages 106--114, Salt Lake City, Utah, September 1986.

No context found.

D. Miller. A theory of modules for logic programming. In Symposium on Logic Programming, pages 106-114. IEEE, September 1986.

No context found.

D. Miller. A Theory of Modules for Logic Programming. In Proc. of the IEEE Symposium on Logic Programming, pages 106--114, September 1986.

No context found.

Dale Miller, "A Theory of Modules for Logic Programming", Proc. International Symposium on Logic Programming (SLP'86), 1986.

First 50 documents

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