CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 10Logic, programming, and type systemsLogic, Reasoning, and KnowledgeAdvanced Database Systems and Queries

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Specialising the Ground Representation in the Logic Programming Language Gödel

Gurr, C. A.·1994·Workshops in Computing
DOI 10.1007/978-1-4471-3234-9_12
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/978-1-4471-3234-9_12

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • No meta-interpreter using the full ground representation with explicit unification has been made to completely remove the overhead via partial evaluation.

    “Performing a similar feat on a meta-interpreter using the full ground representation with explicit unification is much harder and has, to the best of our knowledge, not been accomplished yet”

    From Creating specialised integrity checks through partial evaluation of meta-interpreters (1998) · cites this paper as [33]

  • No meta-interpreter using the full ground representation with explicit unification has been made to completely remove the overhead via partial evaluation.

    “Performing a similar feat on a meta-interpreter using the full ground representation with explicit unification is much harder and has, to the best of our knowledge, not been accomplished yet”

    From Creating specialised integrity checks through partial evaluation of meta-interpreters (1998) · cites this paper as [34]

Citations

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 19

  1. H Ait-Kaci. Warren’s Abstract Machine: A Tutorial Reconstruction. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1991. · DOI
  2. K A Bowen and R A Kowalski. Amalgamating language and metalanguage in logic programming. In K L Clark and S-A Tarnlund, editors, Logic Programming, pages 153–172, 1982.
  3. A F Bowers. Representing Gödel object programs in Gödel. Technical Report CSTR-92–31, Department of Computer Science, University of Bristol, November 1992.
  4. D.A. de Waal and J. Gallagher. Specialisation of a unification algorithm. In T. Clement and K.-K. Lau, editors, Logic Program Synthesis and Transformation, Manchester 1991, pages 205–221. Workshops in Computing, Springer-Verlag, 1992. · DOI
  5. Y Futamura. Partial evaluation of computation process–an approach to a compiler-compiler. Systems, Computers, Controls, 2 (5): 45–50, 1971.
  6. J Gallagher. Transforming logic programs by specialising interpreters. In ECAI-86, pages 109–122, Brighton, 1986.
  7. P M Hill and J W Lloyd. Analysis of meta-programs. In H D Abramson and M H Rogers, editors, Meta-Programming in Logic Programming, Proceedings of the Meta88 Workshop, June 1988. MIT Press, 1989.
  8. P M Hill and J W Lloyd. The Gödel Programming Language. Technical Report CSTR-92–27, Department of Computer Science, University of Bristol, 1992. Revised May 1993. To be published by MIT Press.
  9. P Kursawe. How to invent a prolog machine. New Generation Computing, 5: 97–114, 1987. · DOI
  10. A Lakhotia and L Sterling. How to control unfolding when specialising interpreters. New Generation Computing, 8: 61–70, 1990. · DOI
  11. G Levi and G Sardu. Partial evaluation of metaprograms in a “multiple worlds” logic. New Generation Computing, 6: 227–248, 1988. · DOI
  12. J W Lloyd and J C Shepherdson. Partial evaluation in logic programming. Journal of Logic Programming, 11: 217–242, 1991. · DOI · Paper page
  13. U Nilsson. Towards a methodology for the design of abstract machines for logic programming languages. Journal of Logic Programming,16(1–2):163189, May 1993.
  14. S Owen. Issues in the partial evaluation of meta-interpreters. In H D Abramson and M H Rogers, editors, Meta-Programming in Logic Programming, Proceedings of the Meta88 Workshop, June 1988, pages 319–340. MIT Press, 1989.
  15. S Safra and E Shapiro. Meta interpreters for real. In H J Kugler, editor, Information Processing 86, pages 271–278. North-Holland, 1986.
  16. L S Sterling and R D Beer. Meta-interpreters for expert system construction. Journal of Logic Programming, 6: 163–178, 1989. · DOI
  17. A Takeuchi and K Furukawa. Partial evaluation of Prolog programs and its application to meta-programming. In H J Kugler, editor, Information Processing 86, pages 415–420, Dublin, 1986. North Holland.
  18. R Venken. A Prolog meta-interpreter for partial evaluation and its application to source to source transformation and query optimisation. In ECAI-8.4: Advances in Artificial Intelligence,pages 91–100, Pisa, 1984. North-Holland.
  19. D H D Warren. An abstract prolog instruction set. Technical Note 309, SRI International, 1983.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Gurr, C. A.
Affiliations
University of Bristol (GB)
Corresponding author
Gurr, C. A.
Venue
Workshops in Computing
Publisher
Springer London
Published
1994
Pages
124-140
ISSN
1431-1682 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1007/978-1-4471-3234-9_12
OpenAlex
W2090744903
Cited by
10
References
0
Citations by year
2022: 1
FWCI
1.65
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Workshops in computing (publishedVersion)
  • Bristol Research (University of Bristol) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Software › Logic, programming, and type systems
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Logic, Reasoning, and Knowledge
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Advanced Database Systems and Queries
Keywords
meta-programs, program specialization, declarative semantics, Prolog, program optimization, metaprogramming

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review