Advertisement

From unification to constraints

  • Joxan Jaffar
  • Jean-Louis Lassez
Invited Paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 315)

Abstract

The constraint paradigm plays a more and more important role in knowledge based systems and declarative programming. This is because because it caters for implicit information and the representation of fundamental domains of computation. In particular constraint solving can advantageously replace unification as it corresponds better to programming practice and existing trends in language design. Furthermore the introduction of constraints in Logic Programming preserves and enhances very naturally the desirable semantic properties of Logic Programs. We give here a brief exposition of the motivations that led to the CLP theory, an overview of the language CLP (ℛ), an example of application in Stock Options Trading and finally we mention a number of important activities in the area of Constraints and Logic Programming.

Keywords

Logic Program Logic Programming Expressive Power Semantic Property Implicit Representation 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Bibliography

  1. 1.
    A. Colmerauer, "Opening the PROLOG-III Universe", Byte Magazine, Special Issue on Logic Programming, August 1987.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    H. Comon, "Unification et Disunification: Theorie et Applications", PhD Thesis, Grenoble 88.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    N.C. Heintze, S. Michaylov, P.J. Stuckey, "On the Applications of CLP to Some Problems in Electrical Engineering", Proc. ICLP-4, Melbourne, 1987.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    N.C. Heintze, J. Jaffar, C.S. Lim, S. Michaylov, P.J. Stuckey, R. Yap, C.N. Yee, "The CLP(ℛ) Programmer's manual", Technical Report, Dept. of Computer Science, Monash University, June 1986.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    T. Imielinski, "Intelligent query answering in rule based systems", Journal of Logic Programming 4(3), Sept 1987.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    J. Jaffar, J-L. Lassez and M.J. Maher, "A Logic Programming Language Scheme", in Logic Programming: Relations, Functions and Equations", D. DeGroot and G. Lindstrom (Eds), Prentice-Hall, 1985.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    J. Jaffar and J-L. Lassez, "Constraint Logic Programming", Proc. POPL-87, Munich, 1987.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    J. Jaffar and J-L. Lassez, "Constraint Logic Programming", Technical report, Department of Computer Science, Monash University, June 1986.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    J. Jaffar and S. Michaylov, "Methodology and Implementation of a CLP system", Proc. ICLP-4, Melbourne, 1987.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    J. Jaffar, S. Michaylov, P. Stuckey and R. Yap, "The CLP(ℛ) Language and System", To Appear.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    K. Kunen, "Answer Sets and Negation-as-Failure", Proc. ICLP-4, Melbourne, May 1987.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    C. Lassez, "Constraint Logic Programming", Byte Magazine, Special Issue on Logic Programming, August 1987.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    C. Lassez, K. McAloon and R. Yap, "Constraint Logic Programming and Option Trading", IEEE Expert, Special Issue on Financial Software, August 1987.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    J-L. Lassez and K. Marriott, "Explicit Representation of Terms defined by Counter Examples", Journal of Automated Reasoning, Sept 87 (also IBM Research Report 1986).Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    J-L. Lassez, M. Maher and K. Marriott, "Unification Revisited", to appear in Foundations of Deductive Databases and Logic Programming, J. Minker editor, Morgan Kaufman 1987 (also IBM Research Report 1986).Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    J-L Lassez and K. McAloon, "A Canonical Form for Generalized Linear Arithmetic Constraints", to appear.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    J-L Lassez, M. Maher and P. Stuckey, In preparation.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    M. Maher, "Complete axiomatizations of the algebras of finite, rational and infinite trees", Proc. LICS-88, Edinburgh 1988.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    M. Maher, "Logic Semantics for a Class of Committed-Choice Programs", Proc. ICLP-4, Melbourne, May 1987.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    P. Mancarella, S. Martini and D. Pedreschi, "Complete Logic Programs with domain closure axioms", To appear in the Journal of Logic Programming.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    C.K. Mohan, M.K. Srivas and D. Kapur, Forward Reasoning in Systems of Equations and Inequations, to appear, Journal of Logic Programming.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    K. Mukai and H. Yasukawa, "Complex Indeterminates in PROLOG and its application to discourse models", New Generation Computing 3, 1985.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    K. Sakai and A. Aiba, "Introduction to CAL", ICOT Memo, 1987Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    P. van Hentenryck and M. Dincbas, "Forward Checking in Logic Programming", Proc. ICLP-4, Melbourne, May 1987.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    M. Wallace, "Negation by Constraints — a sound and efficient implementation of negation in deductive databases", Proc. SLP-4, San Francisco, 1987.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1988

Authors and Affiliations

  • Joxan Jaffar
    • 1
  • Jean-Louis Lassez
    • 1
  1. 1.I.B.M. Thomas J. Watson Research CenterUSA

Personalised recommendations