The meaning of negative premises in transition system specifications II

Extended abstract
  • R. J. van Glabbeek
Session 12: Process Theory II
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1099)

Abstract

This paper reviews several methods to associate transition relations to transition system specifications with negative premises in Plotkin's structural operational style. Besides a formal comparison on generality and relative consistency, the methods are also evaluated on their taste in determining which specifications are meaningful and which are not.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. [1]
    K.R. Apt & R. Bol (1994): Logic programming and negation: A survey. Journal of Logic Programming 19–20, pp. 9–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. [2]
    B. Bloom, S. Istrail & A.R. Meyer (1995): Bisimulation can't be traced. JACM 42(1), pp. 232–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. [3]
    R.N. Bol & J.F. Groote (1991): The meaning of negative premises in transition system specifications (extended abstract). In J. Leach Albert, B. Monien & M. Rodríguez, editors: Proceedings 18th ICALP, Madrid, LNCS 510, Springer-Verlag, pp. 481–494. Full version to appear in JACM.Google Scholar
  4. [4]
    K.L. Clark (1978): Negation as failure. In H. Gallaire & J. Minker, editors: Logic and Databases, Plenum Press, New York, pp. 293–322.Google Scholar
  5. [5]
    F. Fages (1991): A new fixpoint semantics for general logic programs compared with the well-founded and the stable model semantics. New Generation Computing 9(4), pp. 425–443.Google Scholar
  6. [6]
    A. van Gelder, K. Ross & J.S. Schlipf (1991): The well-founded semantics for general logic programs, JACM 38(3), pp. 620–650.Google Scholar
  7. [7]
    M. Gelfond & V. Lifschitz (1988): The stable model semantics for logic programming. In R. Kowalski & K. Bowen, editors: Proceedings 5thInternational Conference on Logic Programming, MIT Press, Cambridge, USA, pp. 1070–1080.Google Scholar
  8. [8]
    J.F. Groote (1993): Transition system specifications with negative premises. Theoretical Computer Science 118(2), pp. 263–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. [9]
    J.F. Groote & F.W. Vaandrager (1992): Structured operational semantics and bisimulation as a congruence. Information and Computation 100(2), pp. 202–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. [10]
    G.D. Plotkin (1981): A structural approach to operational semantics. Report DAIMI FN-19, Computer Science Department, Aarhus University.Google Scholar
  11. [11]
    T.C. Przymusinski (1988): On the declarative semantics of deductive databases and logic programs. In Jack Minker, editor: Foundations of Deductive Databases and Logic Programming, Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, Inc., pp. 193–216.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1996

Authors and Affiliations

  • R. J. van Glabbeek
    • 1
  1. 1.Computer Science DepartmentStanford UniversityStanfordUSA

Personalised recommendations