Extended Horn clauses: the framework and some semantics

  • Jean-Marie Jacquet
  • Luís Monteiro
Selected Presentations
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 527)


The purpose of this paper is twofold: to introduce a new extension of concurrent logic programming languages aiming at handling synchronicity and to present and compare several semantics for it. The extended framework essentially rests on an extension of Horn clauses, including multiple atoms in their heads and a guard construct, as well as a new operator between goals. The semantics discussed consist of four semantics. They range in the operational, declarative and denotational types and are issued both from the logic programming tradition and the imperative tradition. They are composed of an operational semantics, describing the (classical) success set and failure set, of two declarative semantics, extending the Herbrand interpretation and the immediate consequence operator to the extended framework, and of a denotational semantics, defined compositionally and on the basis of histories possibly involving hypothetical statements. The mathematical tools mainly used are complete lattices and complete metric spaces.


Logic Program Logic Programming Operational Semantic Parallel Composition Horn Clause 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. [1]
    P. America and J.J.M.M. Rutten. Solving reflexive domain equations in a category of complete metric spaces. Journal of Computer and System Sciences, 39(3):343–375, 1989.Google Scholar
  2. [2]
    J.-M. Andreoli and R. Pareschi. Linear Objects: Logical Processes with Built-in Inheritance. In D.H.D. Warren and P. Szeredi, editors, Proc. 7 th Int. Conf. on Logic Programming, pages 495–510, Jerusalem, Israel, 1990. The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  3. [3]
    A. Brogi. And-Parallelism without Shared Variables. In D.H.D. Warren and P. Szeredi, editors, Proc. 7 th Int. Conf. on Logic Programming, pages 306–321, Jerusalem, Israel, 1990. The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  4. [4]
    J.S. Conery. Logical Objects. In R.A. Kowalski and K.A. Bowen, editors, Proc. 5 th Int. Conf. and Symp. on Logic Programming, pages 420–434, Seattle, USA, 1988. The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  5. [5]
    J.W. de Bakker. Comparative Semantics for Flow of Control in Logic Programming without Logic. Technical Report CS-R8840, Centre for Mathematics and Computer Science (CWI), Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 1988.Google Scholar
  6. [6]
    J.W. de Bakker and J.I. Zucker. Processes and the Denotational Semantics of Concurrency. Information and Control, 54:70–120, 1982.Google Scholar
  7. [7]
    F.S. de Boer and C. Palamidessi. On the Asynchronous Nature of Communication in Concurrent Logic Languages: a Fully Abstract Model based on Sequences. In J.C.M. Baeten and J.W. Klop, editors, Proc. of Concur 90, volume 459 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 99–114, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 1990. Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  8. [8]
    P. Degano and S. Diomedi. A First Order Semantics of a Connective Suitable to Express Concurrency. In Proc. 2 nd Workshop on Logic Programming, pages 506–517, Albufeira, Portugal, 1983.Google Scholar
  9. [9]
    R. Engelking. General Topology. Heldermann Verlag, 1989.Google Scholar
  10. [10]
    M. Falaschi, G. Levi, and C. Palamidessi. A Synchronization Logic: Axiomatics and Formal Semantics of Generalized Horn Clauses. Information and Control, 60:36–69, 1984.Google Scholar
  11. [11]
    J.Y. Girard. Linear Logic. Theoretical Computer Science, 50:1–102, 1987.Google Scholar
  12. [12]
    S. Gregory. Design, Application and Implementation of a Parallel Logic Programming Language. PhD thesis, Department of Computing, Imperial College, London, Great-Britain, 1985.Google Scholar
  13. [13]
    J.-M. Jacquet. Conclog: a Methodological Approach to Concurrent Logic Programming. PhD thesis, Facultés Universitaires Notre-Dame de la Paix, University of Namur, Belgium, 1989. to appear as Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  14. [14]
    J.N. Kok and J.J.M.M. Rutten. Contractions in Comparing Concurrency Semantics. Theoretical Computer Science, 76:179–222, 1990.Google Scholar
  15. [15]
    J.W. Lloyd. Foundations of logic programming. Springer-Verlag, second edition, 1987.Google Scholar
  16. [16]
    L. Monteiro. An Extension to Horn Clause Logic allowing the Definition of Concurrent Processes. In Proc. Formalization of Programming Concepts, volume 107 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 401–407. Springer-Verlag, 1981.Google Scholar
  17. [17]
    L. Monteiro. A Horn Clause-like Logic for Specifying Concurrency. In Proc. 1 st Int. Conf. on Logic Programming, pages 1–8, 1982.Google Scholar
  18. [18]
    C. Palamidessi. Algebraic Properties of Idempotent Substitutions. In M.S. Paterson, editor, Proc. of the 17th International Colloquium on Automata, Languages and Programming, volume 443 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 386–399, Warwick, England, 1990. Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  19. [19]
    V.A. Saraswat. Concurrent Constraint Programming Languages. PhD thesis, Carnegie-Mellon University, 1989. To be published by The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  20. [20]
    E.Y. Shapiro. A Subset of Concurrent Prolog and its Interpreter. Technical Report TR-003, Institute for New Generation Computer Technology (ICOT), Tokyo, 1983.Google Scholar
  21. [21]
    K. Ueda. Guarded Horn Clauses. PhD thesis, Faculty of Engineering, University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan, 1986.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1991

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jean-Marie Jacquet
    • 1
  • Luís Monteiro
    • 2
  1. 1.Centre for Mathematics and Computer ScienceAmsterdamThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Departamento de InformáticaUniversidade Nova de LisboaMonte da CaparicaPortugal

Personalised recommendations