Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Jack Minker — A profile

  • Published:
Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This introduction provides a brief synopsis of Jack Minker's career. It discusses his contributions as a teacher, a researcher, as one who has served the computer science and logic programming communities, as an individual deeply committed to human rights, and as a person.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. K.R. Apt, H.A. Blair and A. Walker, Towards a theory of declarative knowledge, in:Foundations of Deductive Databases and Logic Programming, ed. J. Minker (Morgan Kaufmann, Washington, D.C., 1988) pp. 89–148.

    Google Scholar 

  2. C. Asper, D. Cao, U.S. Chakravarthy, A. Csoek-Poeskh, S. Kasif, M. Kohli, J. Minker, R. Piazza and D. Wang, Parallel problem solving on ZMOB,Proc. Trends and Applications 83 (1983) pp. 142–146.

    Google Scholar 

  3. J.G. Augustson and J. Minker, An analysis of some graph theoretical cluster techniques, J. ACM 17(1970)571–588.

    Google Scholar 

  4. J.S. Augustson and J. Minker, Deriving term relations from a corpus by graph theoretical techniques, J. Amer. Soc. Inf. Sci. 21(1970)101–111.

    Google Scholar 

  5. C. Baral, S. Kraus and J. Minker, Combining multiple knowledge bases, IEEE Trans. Knowledge and Data Eng. 3(1991)208–220.

    Google Scholar 

  6. C. Baral, S. Kraus, J. Minker and V.S. Subrahmanian, Combining default logic databases, J. Int. Inf. Syst. 3(1994)319–348.

    Google Scholar 

  7. C. Baral, J. Lobo and J. Minker, Generalized well-founded semantics for logic programs, Technical Report, Department of Computer Science, University of Maryland, College Park, MD (1989).

    Google Scholar 

  8. C. Baral, J. Lobo and J. Minker, Generalized disjunctive well-founded semantics for logic programs: Declarative semantics, in:Proc. 5th Int. Symp. on Methodologies for Intelligent Systems, eds. Z.W. Ras and M.L. Emrich, Charlotte, NC, 1990 (North-Holland) pp. 465–473.

  9. L. Brotman and J. Minker, Digital simulation of complex traffic problems in communcations systems, Oper. Res. 5(1957)670–679.

    Google Scholar 

  10. U.S. Chakravarthy, D.H. Fishman and J. Minker, Semantic query optimization in expert systems and database systems (1984).

  11. U.S. Chakravarthy, J. Grant and J. Minker, Foundations of semantic query optimization for deductive databases, in:Proc. Workshop on Foundations of Deductive Databases and Logic Programming, ed. J. Minker, Washington, D.C. (1986) pp. 67–101.

  12. U.S. Chakravarthy, J. Grant and J. Minker, Semantic query optimization: Additional constraints and control strategies, in:Proc. Expert Database Systems, ed. L. Kerschberg, Charleston (1986) pp. 259–269.

  13. U.S. Chakravarthy, J. Grant and J. Minker, Logic based approach to semantic query optimization, ACM Trans. Database Syst. 15(1990)162–207.

    Google Scholar 

  14. U.S. Chakravarthy, Semantic query optimization in deductive databases, Ph.D. Thesis, Department of Computer Science, University of Maryland, College Park, MD (1985).

    Google Scholar 

  15. U.S. Chakravarthy, S. Kasif, M. Kohli, J. Minker and D. Cao, Parallel logic processing and ZMOB,1982 Int. Conf. on Parallel Processing (1982) pp. 347–349.

  16. K.L. Clark, Negation as failure, in:Logic and Data Bases, eds. H. Gallaire and J. Minker (Plenum Press, New York, 1978) pp. 293–322.

    Google Scholar 

  17. N. Eisinger, S. Kasif and J. Minker, Logic programming: A parallel approach,Proc. Logic Programming Conf. (1982) pp. 71–77.

  18. J.A. Fernández, J. Grant and J. Minker, Model theoretic approach to view updates in deductive databases (1994), in preparation.

  19. D.H. Fishman, Experiments with a resolution-based deductive question-answering system and a proposed clause representation for parallel search (1973).

  20. J.A. Fernández, J. Lobo, J. Minker and V.S. Subrahmanian, Disjunctive LP+integrity constraints=stable model semantics, Ann. Math. and AI 8(1993)449–474.

    Google Scholar 

  21. D.H. Fishman and J. Minker, Pi-representation: A clause representation for parallel search, Artificial Intelligence 6(1975)103–127.

    Google Scholar 

  22. J.A. Fernández and J. Minker, Bottom-up evaluation of hierarchical disjunctive deductive databases, in:Logic Programming Proc. of the 8th Int. Conf., ed. K. Furukawa (MIT Press, 1991) pp. 660–675.

  23. J.A. Fernández and J. Minker, Computing perfect models of disjunctive stratified databases, in:Proc. ILPS '91 Workshop on Disjunctive Logic Programs, eds. D. Lovemand, J. Lobo and A. Rajasekar, San Diego, CA (1991) pp. 110–117. An extended version has been submitted to J. Logic Progr.

  24. J.A. Fernández and J. Minker, Semantics of disjunctive deductive databases, in:Int. Conf. on Database Theory, Lecture Notes in Computer Science 646 (Springer, 1992) pp. 21–50 (Invited Paper).

  25. J.A. Fernández and J. Minker, Bottom-up computation of perfect models for disjunctive theories, J. Logic Progr., submitted. Preliminary version presented at the ILPS '91 Workshop on Disjunctive Logic Programs, San Diego, CA.

  26. J.A. Fernández and J. Minker, Theory and algorithms for disjunctive deductive databases, Programmirovanie 3(1993)5–39 (in Russian), Invited Paper by the Academy of Sciences of Russia.

    Google Scholar 

  27. J.A. Fernández, J. Minker and A. Yahya, Computing perfect and stable models using ordered model trees, J. Comp. Intellig., submitted.

  28. T. Gaasterland, Generating cooperative answers in deductive databases, Ph.D. Thesis, Department of Computer Science, University of Maryland, College Park, MD (1992).

    Google Scholar 

  29. A. Gal, Cooperative responses in deductive databases, Ph.D. Thesis, Department of Computer Science, University of Maryland, College Park, MD (1988).

    Google Scholar 

  30. A. Van Gelder, Negation as failure using tight derivations for general logic programs, in:Foundations of Deductive Databases and Logic Programming, ed. J. Minker (Morgan Kaufmann, 1988) pp. 1149–1176.

  31. T. Gaasterland, M. Giuliano, A. Litcher, Y. Liu and J. Minker, Using integrity constraints to control search in knowledge base systems, Technical Report CS-TR-2416, Department of Computer Science, University of Maryland, College Park, MD (1990).

    Google Scholar 

  32. T. Gaasterland, P. Godfrey and J. Minker, Relaxation as a platform of cooperative answering, in:Proc. 1st Int. Workshop on Nonstandard queries and answers, Vol. 2, ed. T. Imielinski, Toulouse, France (1991) pp. 101–120.

  33. T. Gaasterland, P. Godfrey and J. Minker, An overview of cooperative answering, J. Intell. Inf. Syst. 1(1992)123–157 (Invited Paper).

    Google Scholar 

  34. T. Gaasterland, P. Godfrey and J. Minker, Relaxation as a platform for cooperative answering, J. Intell. Inf. Syst. 1(1992)293–321.

    Google Scholar 

  35. T. Gaasterland, P. Godfrey, J. Minker and L. Novik, A cooperative answering system, in:Proc. Logic Programming and Automated Reasoning Conf., ed. A. Voronkov, St. Petersburg, Russia, 1992, Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence 634 (Springer), pp. 478–480.

  36. J. Grant, J. Horty, J. Lobo and J. Minker, View updates in stratified disjunctive databases, J. Autom. Reasoning 11(1993)249–267.

    Google Scholar 

  37. M. Giuliano, The control and execution of parallel logic programs, Ph.D. Thesis, Department of Computer Science, University of Maryland, College Park, MD (1990).

    Google Scholar 

  38. M. Gelfond and V. Lifschitz, Classical negation in logic programs and disjunctive databases, New Generation Computing 9(1991)365–385.

    Google Scholar 

  39. H. Gurk and J. Minker, The design and simulation of an information processing system, J. ACM 8(1961)260–270.

    Google Scholar 

  40. H. Gallaire and J. Minker (eds.),Logic and Databases (Plenum Press, New York, 1978).

    Google Scholar 

  41. J. Grant and J. Minker, Optimization in deductive and conventional relational data base systems, in:Advances in Data Base Theory, Vol. 1, eds. H. Gallaire, J. Minker and J.-M. Nicolas (Plenum Press, New York, 1981) pp. 195–234.

    Google Scholar 

  42. J. Grant and J. Minker, On optimizing the evaluation of a set of expressions, Int. J. Comp. Inf. Sci. 11(1982)179–191.

    Google Scholar 

  43. J. Grant and J. Minker, A set optimizing algorithm, in:Proc. Conf. on Information Sciences and Systems (1982) pp. 259–263.

  44. J. Grant and J. Minker, Inferences for numerical dependencies, Theor. Comp. Sci. 41(1985)271–287.

    Google Scholar 

  45. J. Grant and J. Minker, Normalization and axiomizations for numerical dependencies, Inf. Contr. 65(1985)1–17.

    Google Scholar 

  46. H. Gallaire, J. Minker and J.-M. Nicolas (eds.),Advances in Database Theory, Vol. 1 (Plenum Press, New York, 1981).

    Google Scholar 

  47. H. Gallaire, J. Minker and J.-M. Nicolas (eds.),Adcances in Database Theory, Vol. 2 (Plenum Press, 1984).

  48. H. Gallaire, J. Minker and J.-M. Nicolas, Logic and databases: A deductive approach, ACM Comp. Surveys 16(1984)153–185.

    Google Scholar 

  49. P. Godfrey, J. Minker and L. Novik, An architecture for a cooperative database system, in:Proc. 1st Int. Conf. on Applications of Databases, eds. W. Litwin and T. Risch, Vadstena, Sweden, 1994, Lecture Notes in Computer Science 819 (Springer) pp. 3–24.

  50. P. Kanellakis,Foundations of Deductive Databases and Logic Programming, Chap: Logic programming and parallel complexity (Morgan Kaufmann, 1988) pp. 547–585.

  51. S. Kasif, Analysis of parallelism in logic programs, Ph.D. Thesis, Department of Computer Science, University of Maryland, College Park, MD (1984).

    Google Scholar 

  52. S. Kasif, M. Kohli and J. Minker, Prism: A parallel inference system for problem solving, in:Proc. 8th Int. Joint Conf. on Artificial Intelligence (1983) pp. 544–546.

  53. M. Kohli and J. Minker, Specifying control logic programs, Technical Report UMIACS-TR-87-51, CS-TR-1935, University of Maryland, College Park, MD (1987).

    Google Scholar 

  54. M. Kohli, Controlling the execution of logic programs: Specification and compilation of control knowledge, Ph.D. Thesis, Department of Computer Science, University of Maryland, College Park, MD (1987)

    Google Scholar 

  55. R.A. Kowalski, Predicate logic as a programming language, Proc. IFIP 4(1974)569–574.

    Google Scholar 

  56. Z. Lin, Task scheduling for parallel execution of logic programs, Ph.D. Thesis, Department of Computer Science, University of Maryland, College Park, MD (1992).

    Google Scholar 

  57. L. Miller, J. Minker, W.G. Reed and W.E. Shindle, A multi-level file structure for information processing, in:Proc. Western Joint Computer Conf., San Francisco, CA (1960) pp. 53–59.

  58. J. Lobo, J. Minker and A. Rajasekar,Foundations of Disjunctive Logic Programming (MIT Press, 1992).

  59. J. Lobo, A. Rajasekar and J. Minker, Weak completion theory for non-Horn Programs, in:Proc. 5th Int. Conf. and Symp. on Logic Programming, eds. R.A. Kowalski and K.A. Bowen, Seattle, Washington, 1988 (MIT Press) pp. 828–842.

  60. J.R. McSkimin, Techniques for employing semantic information in question-answering systems, Department of Computer Science, University of Maryland, College Park, MD (1976).

    Google Scholar 

  61. J. Minker, D.H. Fishman and J.R. McSkimin, Maryland refutation proof procedure system, Technical Report, Computer Science Center, University of Maryland (1972).

  62. J. Minker, D.H. Fishman and J.R. McSkimin, The Q* algorithm — a search strategy for a deductive question answering system (1973).

  63. J. Minker and J. Grant, Answering queries in indefinite databases and the null value problem, in:Advances in Computing Research, ed. P. Kanellakis (JAI Press, 1986) pp. 247–267.

  64. J. Minker, Computer scientists whose scientific freedom and human rights have been violated: A Report of the ACM Committee on Scientific Freedom and Human Rights, ed. J. Minker, Commun. ACM 24(1981)134–139.

  65. J. Minker, Computer professionals whose scientific freedom and human rights have been violated — 1982: A Report of the ACM Committee on Scientific Freedom and Human Rights, Commun. ACM 25(1982)888–894.

    Google Scholar 

  66. J. Minker, On indefinite databases and the closed world assumption, Lecture Notes in Computer Science 138 (Springer, 1982) pp. 292–308.

  67. J. Minker, Computer professionals whose scientific freedom and human rights have been violated — 1985: A Report of the ACM Committee on Scientific Freedom and Human Rights, Commun. ACM 28(1985)69–78.

    Google Scholar 

  68. J. Minker (ed.),Proc. Workshop on Foundations of Deductive Databases and Logic Programming (1986).

  69. J. Minker, Scientific freedom and human rights of computer professionals — 1989: A Report of the ACM Committee on Scientific Freedom and Human Rights, Commun. ACM 32(1989)957–974.

    Google Scholar 

  70. J.R. McSkimin and J. Minker, Predicate calculus based semantic network for deductive searching.

  71. J.R. McSkimin and J. Minker, The use of a semantic network in deductive question-answering systems, Proc. IJCAI 5(1977)50–58.

    Google Scholar 

  72. J. Minker and R.G. Minker, Optimization of Boolean expressions — historical developments, Ann. History of Comp. 2(1980)227–238.

    Google Scholar 

  73. J. Minker, J.R. McSkimin and D.H. Fishman, MRPPS — an interactive refutation proof procedure system for question-answering, Int. J. Comp. Inf. Sci. 3(2)(1974).

  74. J. Minker and J.-M. Nicolas, On recursive axioms in deductive databases, Inf. Syst. 7(1982)1–15.

    Google Scholar 

  75. J. Minker, E. Peltola and G. Wilson, Document retrieval experiments using cluster analysis, J. Amer. Soc. Inf. Sci. 24(1973)246–260.

    Google Scholar 

  76. J. Minker and A. Rajasekar, A fixpoint semantics for disjunctive logic programs, J. Logic Progr. 9(1990)45–74.

    Google Scholar 

  77. J. Minker and C. Ruiz, On extended disjunctive logic programs, in:Proc. 7th Int. Symp. on Methodolgies for Intelligent Systems, eds. J. Komorowski and Z.W. Raś, Lecture Notes in AI (Springer, 1993) pp. 1–18 (Invited Paper).

  78. J. Minker and C. Ruiz, Sematics for disjunctive logic programs with explicit and default negation, Fundamenta Informaticae 20(1994)145–192, Anniversary Issue edited by H. Rasiowa.

    Google Scholar 

  79. J. Minker and C. Ruiz, Computing the stable and partial stable models of extended disjunctive logic programs (1995), submitted for publication.

  80. J. Minker and J. Sable, Relational data system study, Technical Report RADC-TR-70-180, Rome Air Development Center (1970).

  81. J. Minker, G. Wilson and B. Zimmerman, An evaluation of query expansion by the addition of clustered terms for a document retrieval system, Inf. Storage and Retrieval: Theory and Practice 8(6)(1972).

  82. J. Minker and G. Zanon, An extension to linear resolution with selection function, Inf. Processing Lett. 14(1982)191–194.

    Google Scholar 

  83. J.-M. Nicolas and J.-C. Syre, Natural questions — answering and automatic deduction in system syntex,Proc. IFIP Congress 1974 (1974) pp. 595–599.

  84. S. Pradhan, J. Minker and V.S. Subrahmanian, Combining databases with prioritized information, Int. J. Intellig. and Cooper. Inf. Syst., to appear.

  85. T.C. Przymusinski, On the declarative semantics of deductibe databases and logic programming, in:Foundations of Deductive Databases and Logic Programming, ed. J. Minker (Morgan Kaufmann, Washington, D.C., 1988) Chap. 5, pp. 193–216.

    Google Scholar 

  86. A. Rajasekar, J. Lobo and J. Minker, Skeptical reasoning and disjunctive programs,Proc. 1st Int. Conf. on Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (Morgan Kaufmann, 1989) pp. 349–357.

  87. J.A. Robinson, A machine-oriented logic based on the resolution principle, J. ACM 12(1)(1965).

  88. D. Sherlekar, Graph dissection techniques for VLSI and algorithms, Ph.D. Thesis, Department of Computer Science, University of Maryland, College Park, MD (1987).

    Google Scholar 

  89. M.H. van Emden and R.A. Kowalski, The semantics of predicate logis as a programming language, J. ACM 23(1976)733–742.

    Google Scholar 

  90. G.A. Wilson and J. Minker, Resolution, refinements and search strategies — a comparative study, IEEE Trans. Comp. C-25(1976)782–800.

    Google Scholar 

  91. G.A. Wilson and J. Minker, Resolution, refinements and search strategies — a comparative study, Technical Report (1976).

  92. A. Yahya, J.A. Fernández and J. Minker, Ordered model trees: A normal form for disjunctive deductive databases, J. Autom. Reasoning 13(1994)117–143.

    Google Scholar 

  93. A. Yahya and J. Minker, Query evaluation in partitioned disjunctive deductive databases, Technical Report CS-TR-3104, UMIACS-TR-93-64, University of Maryland (1993).

  94. A. Yahya and J. Minker, Representations for disjunctive deductive databases, Technical Report CS-TR-3111, UMIACS-TR-93-70, University of Maryland (1993).

Download references

Authors
  1. Jorge Lobo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Arcot Rajasekar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Lobo, J., Rajasekar, A. Jack Minker — A profile. Ann Math Artif Intell 14, 135–149 (1995). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01530817

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01530817

Keywords

Search

Navigation