Search
1988 Volume 3
Article Contents
RESEARCH ARTICLE   Open Access    

Metalogic machines: a retrospective rationale for the Japanese Fifth Generation

More Information
  • Abstract: The oft quoted inadequacy of von Neumann architectures for AI applications has regularly been used to justify the design of special purpose parallel machines. In particular, the von Neumann computational model has been criticized as being unsuitable for parallelism because of the memory access bottleneck. For the design of a new machine both top-down and bottom-up methodologies have drawbacks. The middle-out strategy, working both up and down from an intrinsically concurrent high-level programming language as a means of both representing and processing knowledge provides an attractive way of providing a symbiosis between software and hardware. The longest established and most well-founded symbolic method for the representation and manipulation of knowledge is logic. A notable result of the last decade, work on mechanical theorem proving was that a subset of predicate logic, Horn Clauses, can form the foundation of a computational model. The execution model of Prolog, the first popular language based on Horn Clauses, was designed for efficient evaluation on von Neumann architectures. An alternative computational model, more suitable for expressing reactive systems but retaining Prolog's affinity for metaprogramming, has given rise to a new class of languages, concurrent logic languages. One among many of these languages, FGHC (flat Guarded Horn Clauses), was developed by the Japanese as the kernel of their Fifth Generation initiative. A background familiarity with Prolog would be helpful in understanding this article.
  • 加载中
  • Agha G, (1986). Actors: a model of concurrent computation in distributed systemsMIT Press.

    Google Scholar

    Barr A and Feigenbaum E A, (1982). The Handbook of Artificial Intelligence 2Pitman.

    Google Scholar

    Brinch Hansen P, (1973). Operating System PrinciplesPrentice Hall.

    Google Scholar

    Chang C L, (1970). “The unit proof and input proof in theorem proving” JACM17698–707.

    Google Scholar

    Codognet C, Codognet P and File G, (1988). “Yet another intelligent backtracking method” Proc. Fifth Int. Conf. and Symp. on Logic ProgrammingKowalski R and Bowen K (Eds.) MIT Press.

    Google Scholar

    Colmerauer A, (1973), “Les systems-Q ou un formalisme pour analyser et synthetiser des phrases sur ordinateur” Publication Interne No 43, Department d'Informatique, Universite de Montreal.

    Google Scholar

    Colmerauer A, (1982). “Prolog and infinite trees” In: Logic ProgrammingClark KL and Tarnlund SA, Academic Press.

    Google Scholar

    Devlin K, (1987). “A clever little number” The Guardian July 16th.

    Google Scholar

    Dowson M, (1984). “A note on Micro-Planner” In: Implementations of PrologCampbell J A (Ed.) Ellis Horwood.

    Google Scholar

    Elcock E W, (1988). “Absys: the first logic programming language—a retrospective and commentary” to be published Jnl Logic Programming.

    Google Scholar

    Gardner M, (1982). Logic Machines and DiagramsHarvester Press.

    Google Scholar

    Goldberg A and Robson D, (1983). Smalltalk-80: The Language and its Implementation, Addison-Wesley.

    Google Scholar

    Green C, (1969). The Application of Theorem Proving to Question-Answering Systems PhD thesis, Stanford.

    Google Scholar

    Harel A and Pnueli A, (1985). “On the Development of Reactive Systems” In: Logics and models of Concurrent SystemsApt K R (Ed.), Springer Verlag.

    Google Scholar

    Herbrand J, (1930). “Reserche sur la theorie de la demonstration” These, U. de Paris. In: Escrit logiques de Jocoques Herbrand PUF, Paris (1969).

    Google Scholar

    Hewitt C, (1969). “Planner: a language for proving theorems in robots” Proc IJCAI 1 295–301.

    Google Scholar

    Hewitt C, (1985). “The challenge of Open Systems” BYTE04 1985, 223–42.

    Google Scholar

    Hoare C A R, (1982). “Specifications, programs and implementations” Oxford University Tech Monograph PRG-29, Oxford.

    Google Scholar

    Hoare C A R, (1985). Communicating Sequential ProcessesPrentice Hall.

    Google Scholar

    Inmos Ltd, (1984). Occam Programming ManualPrentice Hall.

    Google Scholar

    Jaffar J and Lassez J-L, (1987). “Constraint logic programming” Proc 14th ACM POPL Conference, Munich.

    Google Scholar

    Kuehner D, (1972). “Some special purpose resolution systems Machine Intelligence7117–128, Edinburgh University Press.

    Google Scholar

    Lighthill J, (1972). Artificial Intelligence Reports to SERC, HMSO.

    Google Scholar

    Loveland D W, (1969). “A simplified format for the model elimination theorem-proving procedure” JACM16349–63.

    Google Scholar

    Loveland D W, (1970). “A linear format for resolution” Proc of the INRIA Symposium on Automatic Demonstration 1968 147–162, Roquenfort, Springer-Verlag.

    Google Scholar

    McCarthy J, (1958). “Programs with common sense” Proceedings on the Symposium on the Mechanization of Thought Processes National Physics Lab, Teddington, England.

    Google Scholar

    McCarthy J, (1978). History of LISP, ACM SIG PLAN Notices 13 (8) 5, 11.

    Google Scholar

    Milner R, (1980). A Calculus of Communicating Systems LNCS 92, Springer Verlag.

    Google Scholar

    Newell A. “Duncker on thinking: an enquiry into progress in cognition” Carnegie-Mellon University, Technical Report CS-80–151.

    Google Scholar

    Newell A, Shaw J C and Simon H A, (1956). “The logic theory machine: a complex information processing system” IRE Trans on Information Theory261–79.

    Google Scholar

    New Generation Computing, (1988). Selected Papers from the Workshop on Partial Evaluation and Mixed Computation 6 (2,3).

    Google Scholar

    Ringwood G A, (1987). “Pattern-directed, Markovian, linear guarded, definite clause resolution, submitted JLP but rejected after the unreasonably long time of 21 months.

    Google Scholar

    Ringwood G A, (1988a). “Parlog 86 and the dining logicians” CACM3110–25.

    Google Scholar

    Ringwood G A, (1988b). “SLD: a folk acronym?” Logic Programming Newsletter2/15–8.

    Google Scholar

    Ringwood G A, (1988c). “A comparative exploration of concurrent logic languages” submitted The Knowledge Engineering Review.

    Google Scholar

    Ringwood G A, (1989). “SLD: a folk acronym?” To be published SIGPLAN Notices.

    Google Scholar

    Robinson J A, (1965). “A machine-oriented logic based on the resolution principle” JACM1223–41.

    Google Scholar

    Schofield J, (1988). “The taxonomy of computer evolution” The Guardian 29 12 1.

    Google Scholar

    Sussmann G J and McDermott D V, (1972). “From planner to conniver—a genetic approach” Proc AFIPS Fall Conference1171–1179.

    Google Scholar

    Ungar D and Patterson D, (1987). “What price Smalltalk” IEEE Computer2067–72.

    Google Scholar

    Warren D H D, (1987). “OR-parallel execution models of Prolog” In: Tapsoft 87, LNCS 250, Springer-Verlag.

    Google Scholar

  • Cite this article

    G. A. Ringwood. 1988. Metalogic machines: a retrospective rationale for the Japanese Fifth Generation. The Knowledge Engineering Review. 3:4 doi: 10.1017/S0269888900004604
    G. A. Ringwood. 1988. Metalogic machines: a retrospective rationale for the Japanese Fifth Generation. The Knowledge Engineering Review. 3:4 doi: 10.1017/S0269888900004604

Article Metrics

Article views(22) PDF downloads(267)

Other Articles By Authors

RESEARCH ARTICLE   Open Access    

Metalogic machines: a retrospective rationale for the Japanese Fifth Generation

The Knowledge Engineering Review  3 Article number: 10.1017/S0269888900004604  (1988)  |  Cite this article

Abstract: Abstract: The oft quoted inadequacy of von Neumann architectures for AI applications has regularly been used to justify the design of special purpose parallel machines. In particular, the von Neumann computational model has been criticized as being unsuitable for parallelism because of the memory access bottleneck. For the design of a new machine both top-down and bottom-up methodologies have drawbacks. The middle-out strategy, working both up and down from an intrinsically concurrent high-level programming language as a means of both representing and processing knowledge provides an attractive way of providing a symbiosis between software and hardware. The longest established and most well-founded symbolic method for the representation and manipulation of knowledge is logic. A notable result of the last decade, work on mechanical theorem proving was that a subset of predicate logic, Horn Clauses, can form the foundation of a computational model. The execution model of Prolog, the first popular language based on Horn Clauses, was designed for efficient evaluation on von Neumann architectures. An alternative computational model, more suitable for expressing reactive systems but retaining Prolog's affinity for metaprogramming, has given rise to a new class of languages, concurrent logic languages. One among many of these languages, FGHC (flat Guarded Horn Clauses), was developed by the Japanese as the kernel of their Fifth Generation initiative. A background familiarity with Prolog would be helpful in understanding this article.

    • Copyright © Cambridge University Press 19881988Cambridge University Press
References (41)
  • About this article
    Cite this article
    G. A. Ringwood. 1988. Metalogic machines: a retrospective rationale for the Japanese Fifth Generation. The Knowledge Engineering Review. 3:4 doi: 10.1017/S0269888900004604
    G. A. Ringwood. 1988. Metalogic machines: a retrospective rationale for the Japanese Fifth Generation. The Knowledge Engineering Review. 3:4 doi: 10.1017/S0269888900004604
  • Catalog

      /

      DownLoad:  Full-Size Img  PowerPoint
      Return
      Return