mckay@burdvax.UUCP (06/02/83)
ause from some procedure as well as finding the
appropriate clauses with which to attempt unification. This means
that the measurement includes many unification attempts which may
fail. It is extremely dependent on the order of clauses within a
procedure and the arity of the predicate involved. The measure-
ment can be severely effected by the "shape" of clauses or
literals. A second definition to consider is attempted unifica-
tions regardless of whether they fail or succeed. This would
equate LIPS with unification. One still has the problem with the
arity of the literals involved but the problem with the order of
clauses has been minimized. While unification is a critical com-
ponent of a logic programming system, it by itself does not meas-
ure "progress" of a computation.
All of this suggests that LIPS (whichever definition one
uses) is extremely application specific and, therefore, if one is
quoting a LIPS for a particualr system one MUST state with what
the measurement was done, ie a plain LIPS figure is is not good
enough, it must be "LIPS with respect to X".
Therefore:
What is appropriate to measure for such systems?
What are reasonable benchmarks?
What have you used for benchmarks in the past?
What AND WHY did you choose the specific logic programs as benchmarks?
What measurements are there for the various systems?