I am looking for implementation of Prolog extension which handles temporal logic operators. Is there any info about this ?
As temporal logic has been a significant part of logic, I am sure that there must have been discussions about this with respect to prototype or implementation.
I suggest to take a look at Etalis. If it turns out to be overkill (I'm sorry I never really delved inside too much), and you're using SWI-Prolog, see if pack Julian could be a better fit. It's nicely integrated with CLP(FD) library and will leave you full freedom about the semantics of your operators. Of course, it's a 'lower level' approach...
I would start with Carlo's suggestions. But if you're looking only for basic temporal logic operators, the Logtalk library includes an implementation for basic temporal interval relations:
https://logtalk.org/docs/interval_0.html
You can use Logtalk as an extension to most Prolog implementations.
Related
I suspect that λProlog needs a type system to make their higher
order unification sound. Otherwise through self application some
Russell type anomalies can appear.
Are there alternative higher order Prologs that don't need .sig files?
Maybe by a much simpler type system, that doesn't need that many
declarations but still has some form of higher order unification?
Can this dilemma be solved?
Is there a higher order Prolog that wouldn't need a type system?
These are type-free:
HiLog
HiOrd
From the HiOrd paper:
The framework proposed gives rise to many questions the authors hope to ad-
dress in future research. In particular, a rigorous treatment must be developed for
comparison with other higher-order formal systems (Hilog, Lambda-Prolog). For
example, it is reasonably straightforward to conservatively translate the Higher-
order Horn fragment of λProlog into Hiord by erasing types, as the resolution
rules are essentially the same (assuming a type-safe higher-order unification pro-
cedure).
Ciao (includes HiOrd)
Prolog is a nice language. I use it occasionally, from time to time.
But approaching it every subsequent time makes me feel less and less comfortable syntactically.
The modern programming languages are moving to allow
programmer less repeating himself
omit unnecessary pieces if they can be deduced, or their names are just placeholders.
The DCG is a step in the right direction allowing one to write
sentence --> noun_phrase, verb_phrase.
instead of
sentence(A,Z) :- noun_phrase(A,B), verb_phrase(B,Z).
but its entanglement with difference lists makes it less useful.
So what I am looking for are projects giving Prolog
a more compact syntactic representation, while preserving its semantic expressiveness.
Higher-order programming based on call/N is still a pretty much unexplored terrain. Major implementations like SICStus Prolog added call/N as late as 2006. So there is still a lot to explore. Consider library(lambda), library(reif) (both here) and other definitions using the meta-predicate declaration.
One thing you might want to look into in case of Swi-Prolog are actual language extensions introduced specifically by Swi-Prolog 7:
http://www.swi-prolog.org/pldoc/man?section=extensions
Another thing is Quasi-Quotation library which allows you to insert pieces of code in your own language (defined using DCG) inside "regular" Prolog code:
http://www.swi-prolog.org/pldoc/man?section=quasiquotations
The last thing I can recommend is the list of additional Swi-Prolog packages, some of which are specifically designed to extend the language, e.g. 'func', 'lambda', etc.:
http://www.swi-prolog.org/pack/list
I'm writing a Prolog interpreter as an exercise and wondering what I should be aiming for. Unfortunately there are many versions of Prolog to choose from and they are documented to various degrees. I quickly found this question from someone who was apparently expecting far too much from the internet by wanting a detailed html specification of Prolog. The answer to that was that you can get the ISO standard for $30, but that's rather impractical. Users are never going to pay $30 just to read about Prolog when they can get a Prolog interpreter for even less money, so if you pay the money and conform to the standard few people will ever recognize your effort. Therefore it doesn't surprise me at all that the ISO standard isn't universally respected.
Starting from the assumption that the ISO standard is a joke, what is the real version of Prolog that an interpreter should be aiming for? I don't mean that every little Prolog interpreter should fully implement every feature, but when constructing a Prolog interpreter there's no end to the little decisions that must be made. How should someone discover the consensus of the Prolog community about what Prolog should be?
If you are writing a Prolog system as an exercise, don't expect that you get too much done. After all, it is quite an effort.
To start with, aim for the core of the ISO standard, that is 13211-1:1995 including Cor.1:2007
and Cor.2:2012. That core is pretty much supported by many systems like: IF, SWI, YAP, B, GNU, SICStus, Jekejeke, Minerva. So while this core just covers the very basics, it will be still a lot of work to you.
Then, you can consider what further direction you want to go. From a standard's viewpoint these are implementation specific extensions. Systems pretty much differ in the way they offer extensions, so there is no clear way to choose. The most popular systems are SICStus (commercial) and SWI (open source). An open source system with better conformance than SWI is GNU.
You are putting a lot of quite debatable implications into your question, so let me try to sort some out:
Price of standards. ISO standards do cost something - these documents have a certain legal status - depending on your country and legislation. Freely available web documents can serve as evidence only. See for example the C standard which you get for the same prices: One official high price (USD 285) and a reduced one by INCITS (USD 30). The difference is only the cover sheet. At least, you can get the Prolog standard for a significantly reduced price.
Relevance. There is just one standard. And systems conform quite closely. Where they differ, they differ rather randomly. As an example, look at this detailed comparison of syntax which covers both reading and writing terms. Typically, such differences are reported by users who get hit by one or another difference. These differences are nowhere formally defined.
I don't agree with your assumption about ISO Prolog, indeed I would suggest to try to implement a small subset of ISO Prolog (i.e. be 'sure' to properly implement findall/setof).
A principal problem with ISO standard it's the module directive. Then choose an implementation to model modules, or skip them altogether.
Even some 'undiscussed' builtin will be difficult to implement, depending on the language you use (C, Haskell, Lisp, SQL, Javascript, C++...) and the choices you will do about the degree of translation. Most implementations out there are not interpreters, but bytecode compilers with various degrees of runtime support. The most used choice for the bytecode level is Warren's Abstract Machine (WAM, as you surely know).
When I wrote my Prolog interpreter, many years ago, I designed and implemented an object oriented database model, using algorithm ABC instead of the WAM, and I designed and implemented the Variables handling with ingenuity... but I left out setof/bagof, for instance...
I think SWI-Prolog pretty-much drives the Prolog standard nowdays, so take a look at their documentation... Other than that, what you are asking is being debated over and over again during the past years in the Prolog Standardization meetings. Some argue that tabling should be made into the standard, others claim the same for automatic indexing, and so on. So, in my humble opinion, the best you can do is "mimic" what SWI does for most stuff, and you'll be almost certainly in the standard
Has anyone set out a proposal for a formal pseudo code standard?
Is it better to be a 'rough' standard to infer an understanding?
It is better to be a rough standard; the intent of pseudocode is to be human-readable, not machine-readable, and the goal of actually writing pseudocode is to convey a higher-level description of an algorithm while being unconcerned (typically) with the minutiae of the implementation. My opinion is that for it to qualify as pseudocode there has to be some ambiguity, and your goal should be a clear conveyance of your algorithmic intentions. Stick to common control structures, declarations and concepts that are paradigmatic to your target audience or language and you'll get the point across. If you start getting too formal, you're getting too close to writing actual code.
NOT AN ANSWER.
IMHO forcing a standard (pseudo code syntax, if you will) will cause people to be less clear on what they want to say.
Browse around, try to gather some knowledge about used conventions, and do your best to be clear.
Although this is by no means a formal proposal, Python is considered by some to be Executable Pseudocode.
in my opinion it depends on the people who are using your programs. In books for algorithms the pseudo code is very formal an near to maths, but is also described in a few paragraphs, so this is for scientific situations.
If I develop in others environments I would prefer a not that formal way because that is easier to understand for most people. I prefer spoken words over formalism. If you want formalism you could read the code instead.
I would like to ask you about what formal system could be more interesting to implement from scratch/reverse engineer.
I've looked through some existing and open-source projects of logical/declarative programming systems. I've decided to make up something similar in my free time, or at least to catch the general idea of implementation.
It would be great if some of these systems would provide most of the expressive power and conciseness of modern academic investigations in logic and its relation with computational models.
What would you recommend to study at least at the conceptual level? For example, Lambda-Prolog is interesting particularly because it allows for higher order relations, but AFAIK is based on intuitionist logic and therefore lack the excluded-middle principle; that's generally a disadvantage for me.
I would also welcome any suggestions about modern logical programming systems which are less popular but more expressive/powerful.
Prolog was the first language which changed my point of view at programming. But later I found it to be not so high-level as I'd like to see it.
Curry - I've tried only Munster CC, and found it somewhat inconvenient. Actually, at this point, I decided to stop ignoring Haskell.
Mercury has many things which I wanted to see in Prolog. I have a really good expectation about the possibility to distinguish modes of rules. Programs written in Mercury should inspire compiler to do a lot of optimizations (I guess).
Twelf.
It generalizes lambda-prolog significantly, and it's a logical framework and a metalogical framework as well as a logic programming language. If you need a language with a heavy focus on logic as well as computation, it's the best I know of.
If I were to try to extend a logic based system, I'd choose Prolog Cafe as it is small, open sourced, standards compliant, and can be easily integrated into java based systems.
For the final project in a programming languages course I took, we had to embed a Prolog evaluator in Scheme using continuations and macros. The end result was that you could freely mix Scheme and Prolog code, and even pass arbitrary predicates written in Scheme to the Prolog engine.
It was a very instructive exercise. The first 12 lines of code (and and or) literally took about 6 hours to write and get correct. It was pretty much the search logic, written very concisely using continuations. The rest followed a bit more easily. Then once I added the unification algorithm, it all just worked.