Optimal Union-Find in Constraint Handling Rules

Constraint Handling Rules (CHR) is a committed-choice rule-based language that was originally intended for writing constraint solvers. In this paper we show that it is also possible to write the classic union-find algorithm and variants in CHR. The programs neither compromise in declarativeness nor efficiency. We study the time complexity of our programs: they match the almost-linear complexity of the best known imperative implementations. This fact is illustrated with experimental results.Comment: 12 pages, 3 figures, to appear in Theory and Practice of Logic Programming (TPLP

Introduction to the 28th International Conference on Logic Programming Special Issue

We are proud to introduce this special issue of the Journal of Theory and Practice of Logic Programming (TPLP), dedicated to the full papers accepted for the 28th International Conference on Logic Programming (ICLP). The ICLP meetings started in Marseille in 1982 and since then constitute the main venue for presenting and discussing work in the area of logic programming

CHR as grammar formalism. A first report

Grammars written as Constraint Handling Rules (CHR) can be executed as efficient and robust bottom-up parsers that provide a straightforward, non-backtracking treatment of ambiguity. Abduction with integrity constraints as well as other dynamic hypothesis generation techniques fit naturally into such grammars and are exemplified for anaphora resolution, coordination and text interpretation.Comment: 12 pages. Presented at ERCIM Workshop on Constraints, Prague, Czech Republic, June 18-20, 200

Security Policy Consistency

With the advent of wide security platforms able to express simultaneously all the policies comprising an organization's global security policy, the problem of inconsistencies within security policies become harder and more relevant. We have defined a tool based on the CHR language which is able to detect several types of inconsistencies within and between security policies and other specifications, namely workflow specifications. Although the problem of security conflicts has been addressed by several authors, to our knowledge none has addressed the general problem of security inconsistencies, on its several definitions and target specifications.Comment: To appear in the first CL2000 workshop on Rule-Based Constraint Reasoning and Programmin

Requirements and Tools for Variability Management

Explicit and software-supported Business Process Management has become the core infrastructure of any medium and large organization that has a need to be efficient and effective. The number of processes of a single organization can be very high, furthermore, they might be very similar, be in need of momentary change, or evolve frequently. If the ad-hoc adaptation and customization of processes is currently the dominant way, it clearly is not the best. In fact, providing tools for supporting the explicit management of variation in processes (due to customization or evolution needs) has a profound impact on the overall life-cycle of processes in organizations. Additionally, with the increasing adoption of Service-Oriented Architectures, the infrastructure to support automatic reconfiguration and adaptation of business process is solid. In this paper, after defining variability in business process management, we consider the requirements for explicit variation handling for (service based) business process systems. eGovernment serves as an illustrative example of reuse. In this case study, all local municipalities need to implement the same general legal process while adapting it to the local business practices and IT infrastructure needs. Finally, an evaluation of existing tools for explicit variability management is provided with respect to the requirements identified.

Decidability properties for fragments of CHR

We study the decidability of termination for two CHR dialects which, similarly to the Datalog like languages, are defined by using a signature which does not allow function symbols (of arity >0). Both languages allow the use of the = built-in in the body of rules, thus are built on a host language that supports unification. However each imposes one further restriction. The first CHR dialect allows only range-restricted rules, that is, it does not allow the use of variables in the body or in the guard of a rule if they do not appear in the head. We show that the existence of an infinite computation is decidable for this dialect. The second dialect instead limits the number of atoms in the head of rules to one. We prove that in this case, the existence of a terminating computation is decidable. These results show that both dialects are strictly less expressive than Turing Machines. It is worth noting that the language (without function symbols) without these restrictions is as expressive as Turing Machines