Exploiting the Hierarchical Structure of Rule-Based Specifications for Decision Planning

Rule-based specifications have been very successful as a declarative approach in many domains, due to the handy yet solid foundations offered by rule-based machineries like term and graph rewriting. Realistic problems, however, call for suitable techniques to guarantee scalability. For instance, many domains exhibit a hierarchical structure that can be exploited conveniently. This is particularly evident for composition associations of models. We propose an explicit representation of such structured models and a methodology that exploits it for the description and analysis of model- and rule-based systems. The approach is presented in the framework of rewriting logic and its efficient implementation in the rewrite engine Maude and is illustrated with a case study.

More than skin deep : the writing process of Roadkill

The following report describes the writing process of my feature screenplay Roadkill. By looking back on the process and all its stages—including inspiration, planning, first draft, feedback, revision, and rewriting—I attempt to communicate my creative process and show how my time spent in the MFA program has influenced that process.Radio-Television-Fil

Strict General Setting for Building Decision Procedures into Theorem Provers

The efficient and flexible incorporating of decision procedures into theorem provers is very important for their successful use. There are several approaches for combining and augmenting of decision procedures; some of them support handling uninterpreted functions, congruence closure, lemma invoking etc. In this paper we present a variant of one general setting for building decision procedures into theorem provers (gs framework [18]). That setting is based on macro inference rules motivated by techniques used in different approaches. The general setting enables a simple describing of different combination/augmentation schemes. In this paper, we further develop and extend this setting by an imposed ordering on the macro inference rules. That ordering leads to a ”strict setting”. It makes implementing and using variants of well-known or new schemes within this framework a very easy task even for a non-expert user. Also, this setting enables easy comparison of different combination/augmentation schemes and combination of their ideas

Extensional and Intensional Strategies

This paper is a contribution to the theoretical foundations of strategies. We first present a general definition of abstract strategies which is extensional in the sense that a strategy is defined explicitly as a set of derivations of an abstract reduction system. We then move to a more intensional definition supporting the abstract view but more operational in the sense that it describes a means for determining such a set. We characterize the class of extensional strategies that can be defined intensionally. We also give some hints towards a logical characterization of intensional strategies and propose a few challenging perspectives

Town planning schemes: Are they appropriate within the context of a new democracy?

Within the corridors of power there has been a tendency to discard all associated with the past, and to replace it with newly drafted legislation to suit the new era we find ourselves in. This tendency is clearly understood, bearing in mind the dismal manner in which our cities are structured as we move into a post-apartheid society. That we need to reconfigure and repair the urban fabric of our cities, so that they can function efficiently and in the interest of all citizens is undisputed. However, whether this will be achieved by rewriting legislation relating to town planning is a debatable point, particularly the Town Planning Ordinances and their accompanying Town planning schemes

The Use of Proof Planning for Cooperative Theorem Proving

AbstractWe describebarnacle: a co-operative interface to theclaminductive theorem proving system. For the foreseeable future, there will be theorems which cannot be proved completely automatically, so the ability to allow human intervention is desirable; for this intervention to be productive the problem of orienting the user in the proof attempt must be overcome. There are many semi-automatic theorem provers: we call our style of theorem provingco-operative, in that the skills of both human and automaton are used each to their best advantage, and used together may find a proof where other methods fail. The co-operative nature of thebarnacleinterface is made possible by the proof planning technique underpinningclam. Our claim is that proof planning makes new kinds of user interaction possible.Proof planning is a technique for guiding the search for a proof in automatic theorem proving. Common patterns of reasoning in proofs are identified and represented computationally as proof plans, which can then be used to guide the search for proofs of new conjectures. We have harnessed the explanatory power of proof planning to enable the user to understand where the automatic prover got to and why it is stuck. A user can analyse the failed proof in terms ofclam's specification language, and hence override the prover to force or prevent the application of a tactic, or discover a proof patch. This patch might be to apply further rules or tactics to bridge the gap between the effects of previous tactics and the preconditions needed by a currently inapplicable tactic