Compositionality properties of SLD-derivations

Theoretical Computer Science

Volumn 211, Issue 1-2, 1999, Pages 275-309

  Comini, Marco ^a   Meo, Maria Chiara ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF PISA   (Italy)

^b UNIVERSITY OF L'AQUILA   (Italy)

Author keywords

Compositionality; Logic programming; Semantics; SLD derivations

Indexed keywords

EID: 0000141679     PISSN: 03043975     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S0304-3975(97)00174-6     Document Type: Article

References (17)

1. K.R. Apt, Introduction to logic programming, in: J. van Leeuwen (Ed.), Handbook of Theoretical Computer Science, vol. B: Formal Models and Semantics, Elsevier and The MIT Press, Amsterdam and Cambridge, 1990, pp. 495-574.
2. A. Bossi, M. Gabbrielli, G. Levi, M. Martelli. The s-semantics approach: Theory and applications, J. Logic Programm. 19-20 (1994) 149-197.
3. M. Comini, G. Levi, M.C. Meo, Compositionality of SLD-derivations and their abstractions, in: J. Lloyd (Ed.), Proc. 1995 Internat. Symp. on Logic Programming, The MIT Press, Cambridge, 1995, pp. 561-575.
4. M. Comini, G. Levi, M.C. Meo, A theory of observables for logic programs, 1996, submitted.
5. M. Comini, G. Levi, G. Vitiello, Efficient detection of incompleteness errors in the abstract debugging of logic programs, in: M. Ducassé (Ed.), Proc. 2nd Internat. Workshop on Automated and Algorithmic Debugging, AADEBUG '95, 1995.
6. P. Cousot, R. Cousot, Abstract interpretation: a unified lattice model for static analysis of programs by construction or approximation of fixpoints, In: Proc. 4th ACM Symp. Principles of Programming Languages, 1977, pp. 238-252.
7. S.K. Debray, P. Mishra, Denotational and operational semantics for prolog, J. Logic Programm. 5 (1988) 61-91.
8. E. Eder, Properties of substitutions and unification, J. Symbolic Comput. 1 (1985) 31-46.
9. M. Falaschi, G. Levi, M. Martelli, C. Palamidessi, Declarative modeling of the operational behavior of logic languages, Theoret. Comput. Sci. 69(3) (1989) 289-318.
10. M. Gabbrielli, G. Levi, M.C. Meo, Observational equivalences for logic programs, in: K. Apt (Ed.), Proc. Joint Internat. Conf. and Symp. on Logic Programming, The MIT Press, Cambridge, 1992, pp. 131-145.
11. M. Gabbrielli, G. Levi, M.C. Meo, Resultants semantics for PROLOG, J. Logic Comput. 6(4) (1996) 491-521.
12. N.D. Jones, A. Mycroft, Stepwise development of operational and denotational semantics for PROLOG, in: Sten-Åke Tärnlund (Ed.), Proc. Second Internat. Conf. on Logic Programming, 1984, pp. 281-288.
13. N.D. Jones, H. Søndergaard, A semantics-based framework for the abstract interpretation of PROLOG, in: S. Abramsky, C. Hankin (Eds.), Abstract Interpretation of Declarative Languages, Ellis Horwood, Chichester, 1987, pp. 123-142.
14. R. Kemp, G. Ringwood, An algebraic framework for the abstract interpretation of logic programs, in: S.K. Debray, M. Hermenegildo (Eds.), Proc. North American Conf. on Logic Programming '90, The MIT Press, Cambridge, 1990, pp. 506-520.
15. R. Kemp, G. Ringwood, Reynolds base, Clark Models and Heyting semantics of logic programs, submitted.
16. J.L. Lassez, M.J. Maher, K. Marriott, Unification revisited, in: J. Minker (Ed.), Foundations of Deductive Databases and Logic Programming, Morgan Kaufmann, Los Altos, CA, 1988, pp. 587-625.
17. J.W. Lloyd, Foundations of Logic Programming, 2nd ed. Springer, Berlin, 1987.