Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Implementing specifications by dynamic inheritance

  • Regular Papers
  • Published:
New Generation Computing Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

An extended form of logic programming is presented which combines SLD-resolution with a dynamic form of inheritance between modules. The resulting inference system supports the notion of ‘implementation’ as a process of computing mappings between specifications and technologies—both formulated as sets of clausal-form theories—in order to satisfy requirements posed as queries. Besides detailing the operational features of the formalism, the paper also explores its semantics and its practical value in two case studies.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

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

Explore related subjects

Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.

References

  1. Aït-Kaci, H. and Nasr, R., “LOGIN: A Logic Programming Language with Built-in Inheritance,”Journal of Logic Programming, 3, 3, pp. 185–215, 1986.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Blair, G., Gallagher, J., Hutchinson, D. and Shephards, D. (eds.),Object-Oriented Languages, Systems and Applications, Pitman Publishing, London, 1991.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Brogi, A., Mancarella, P., Pedreschi, D. and Turini, F., “Composition Operators for Logic Theories,” inComputational Logic (Lloyd, J. W., ed.), Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1990.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Deliyanni, A. and Kowalski, R. A., “Logic and Semantic Networks,”Comm. of the ACM, 22, 3, pp. 184–192, 1979.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  5. Eshghi, K. and Kowalski, R. A., “Abduction Compared with Negation by Failure,”Proc. of the Sixth International Conference on Logic Programming (Levi, G. and Martelli, M., eds.), MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass., pp. 234–254, 1989.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Gaifman, H. and Shapiro, E., “Fully Abstract Compositional Semantics for Logic Programs,”Proc. of Sixteenth Annual ACM Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages, ACM Press, New York, pp. 134–142, 1989.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Gallaire, H., “Merging Objects and Logic Programming: Relational Semantics,”Proc. of Fifth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (Kehler, T., Rosenschein, S., Filman, R. and Patel-Schneider, eds.), Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc., Los Altos, Calif., 1986.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Kakas, A. C. and Mancarella, P., “Generalized Stable Models: A Semantics for Deduction,”Proc. of Ninth European Conference on Artificial Intelligence (Aiello, L. C., ed.), Pitman Publishing, London, pp. 385–391, 1990.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Lenzerini, M., Nardi, D. and Simi, M. (eds.),Inheritance Hierarchies in Knowledge Representation and Programming Languages, John Wiley & Sons, Chichester England, 1991.

    Google Scholar 

  10. McCabe, F. G., “Logic and Objects,”Ph. D thesis, University of London, 1989.

  11. Mello, P., Natali, A. and Ruggieri, C., “Logic Programming in a Software Engineering Perspective,”Proc. of the North American Conference on Logic Programming, Cleveland, Ohio, 1989.

  12. Monteiro, L. and Porto, A., “Contextual Logic Programming,”Proc. of the Sixth International Conference on Logic Programming (Levi, G. and Martelli, M., eds.), MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass., pp. 284–299, 1989.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Shanahan, M., “Prediction is Deduction but Explanation Is Abduction,”Proc. of Eleventh International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (Sridharan, N. S., ed.),2, Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc., San Mateo, Calif., pp. 1055–1060, 1989.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Snyder, A., “Inheritance in Object-Oriented Programming Languages,” inInheritance Hierarchies in Knowledge Representation and Programming Languages, John Wiley & Sons, Chichester, England, pp. 153–171, 1991.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Padgham, L., “A Lattice-Based Model for Inheritance Reasoning,” inInheritance Hierarchies in Knowledge Representation and Programming Languages, John Wiley & Sons, Chichester, England, pp. 51–68, 1991.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Patel-Schneider, P. F., “What's Inheritance Got to Do with Knowledge Representation?” inInheritance Hierarchies in Knowledge Representation and Programming Languages, John Wiley & Sons, Chichester, England, pp. 1–11, 1991.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Selman, B. and Levesque, H. J., “The Tractability of Path-Based Inheritance,” inInheritance Hierarchies in Knowledge Representation and Programming Languages, John Wiley & Sons, Chichester, England, pp. 83–95, 1991.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Touretzky, D. S.,The Mathematics of Inheritance Systems, Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc., Los Altos, Calif., 1986.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  19. Touretzky, D. S., Horty, J. F. and Thomason, R. H., “A Clash of Intuitions: The Current State of Nonmonotonic Multiple Inheritance Systems,”Proc. of Tenth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (McDermott, J., ed.), Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc., Los Altos, Calif., pp. 476–482, 1987.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Electronic Systems Division, RAFAEL, P. O. Box 2250/80, Haifa, Israel

    Amir Tomer

  2. Department of Computing, Imperial College of Science, Technology and Medicine, 180, Queen's Gate, SW7 2BZ, London, UK

    Christopher J. Hogger

Authors
  1. Amir Tomer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Christopher J. Hogger
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Additional information

Dr. Amir Tomer: Dr. Tomer is serving as Software Section Head of Digital Systems Department, RAFAEL, Israel. His research interests are knowledge based systems for design and engineering, knowledge representation methods, inheritance systems, logic programming and logic programming with inheritance.

Dr. Christopher John Hogger: He obtained his Ph.D. in computational logic at Imperial College in 1979 and was appointed to the Department of Computing in 1983. Previously he was a lecturer in the Department of Civil Engineering where he taught computing and mathematics, and before that was a programmer with Software Sciences Ltd. His professional interests are mainly in the field of logic programming, with particular interest in specification, reasoning about programs and logic language extensions.

About this article

Cite this article

Tomer, A., Hogger, C.J. Implementing specifications by dynamic inheritance. New Gener Comput 12, 183–208 (1994). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03037341

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03037341

Keywords

Search

Navigation