Skip to main content
Springer Nature Link
Log in

The meaning of negative premises in transition system specifications II

Extended abstract

  • Session 12: Process Theory II
  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Automata, Languages and Programming (ICALP 1996)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNCS,volume 1099))

Included in the following conference series:

  • 136 Accesses

Abstract

This paper reviews several methods to associate transition relations to transition system specifications with negative premises in Plotkin's structural operational style. Besides a formal comparison on generality and relative consistency, the methods are also evaluated on their taste in determining which specifications are meaningful and which are not.

This work was supported by ONR under grant number N00014-92-J-1974.

Full version available as Report STAN-CS-TN-95-16, and by ftp from boole.stanford.edu.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. K.R. Apt & R. Bol (1994): Logic programming and negation: A survey. Journal of Logic Programming 19–20, pp. 9–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. B. Bloom, S. Istrail & A.R. Meyer (1995): Bisimulation can't be traced. JACM 42(1), pp. 232–268.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. R.N. Bol & J.F. Groote (1991): The meaning of negative premises in transition system specifications (extended abstract). In J. Leach Albert, B. Monien & M. Rodríguez, editors: Proceedings 18th ICALP, Madrid, LNCS 510, Springer-Verlag, pp. 481–494. Full version to appear in JACM.

    Google Scholar 

  4. K.L. Clark (1978): Negation as failure. In H. Gallaire & J. Minker, editors: Logic and Databases, Plenum Press, New York, pp. 293–322.

    Google Scholar 

  5. F. Fages (1991): A new fixpoint semantics for general logic programs compared with the well-founded and the stable model semantics. New Generation Computing 9(4), pp. 425–443.

    Google Scholar 

  6. A. van Gelder, K. Ross & J.S. Schlipf (1991): The well-founded semantics for general logic programs, JACM 38(3), pp. 620–650.

    Google Scholar 

  7. M. Gelfond & V. Lifschitz (1988): The stable model semantics for logic programming. In R. Kowalski & K. Bowen, editors: Proceedings 5thInternational Conference on Logic Programming, MIT Press, Cambridge, USA, pp. 1070–1080.

    Google Scholar 

  8. J.F. Groote (1993): Transition system specifications with negative premises. Theoretical Computer Science 118(2), pp. 263–299.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. J.F. Groote & F.W. Vaandrager (1992): Structured operational semantics and bisimulation as a congruence. Information and Computation 100(2), pp. 202–260.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. G.D. Plotkin (1981): A structural approach to operational semantics. Report DAIMI FN-19, Computer Science Department, Aarhus University.

    Google Scholar 

  11. T.C. Przymusinski (1988): On the declarative semantics of deductive databases and logic programs. In Jack Minker, editor: Foundations of Deductive Databases and Logic Programming, Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, Inc., pp. 193–216.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Computer Science Department, Stanford University, 94305, Stanford, CA, USA

    R. J. van Glabbeek

Authors
  1. R. J. van Glabbeek
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Friedhelm Meyer Burkhard Monien

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 1996 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

van Glabbeek, R.J. (1996). The meaning of negative premises in transition system specifications II. In: Meyer, F., Monien, B. (eds) Automata, Languages and Programming. ICALP 1996. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 1099. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-61440-0_154

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-61440-0_154

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-540-61440-1

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-540-68580-7

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics