Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

ECAVI: An Assistant for Reasoning About Actions and Change with the Event Calculus

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Domain-Specific Conceptual Modeling

  • 876 Accesses

Abstract

Reasoning about actions, change, and causality constitutes an important field of research in artificial intelligence. Several formal action languages have been proposed, addressing the need to qualify change and facilitate (commonsense) reasoning in dynamic settings. The Event Calculus (EC), in particular, permits the representation of causal and narrative information. Although action languages are well established as a means to model dynamic domains, their adoption by knowledge engineers is often hindered by modelling errors and steep learning curves. It has been argued that visual modelling tools could assist knowledge engineers in their modelling tasks and improve the quality of the resulting models by obtaining a better understanding of the semantics. We present ECAVI (Event Calculus Analysis and VIsualisation), a domain-independent visual modelling tool for designing dynamic domains in the Event Calculus. ECAVI is mainly addressed to inexperienced modellers, aiming to acquaint them with the features of the Event Calculus and to guide them during the process of designing their dynamic problem settings.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 169.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Brambilla, M., Cabot, J., Wimmer, M.: Model-Driven Software Engineering in Practice: Second Edition, 2nd edn. Morgan & Claypool Publishers (2017)

    Google Scholar 

  2. Choe, Y., Lee, M.: Algebraic method to model secure IoT. In: Domain-Specific Conceptual Modeling, pp. 335–355 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-39417-6_15

  3. Dogmus, Z., Erdem, E., Patoglu, V.: ReAct!: An interactive educational tool for AI planning for robotics. IEEE Trans. Educ. 58, 15–24 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1109/te.2014.2318678. https://app.dimensions.ai/details/publication/pub.1061587896

  4. Faber, W., Woltran, S.: Manifold answer-set programs for meta-reasoning. In: Logic Programming and Nonmonotonic Reasoning, LPNMR 2009 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-04238-6_12

  5. Ferraris, P., Lee, J., Lifschitz, V.: Stable models and circumscription. Artificial Intelligence 175(1), 236–263 (2011)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  6. Fill, H.-G., Karagiannis, D.: On the conceptualisation of modelling methods using the ADOxx meta modelling platform. Enterp. Modell. Inf. Syst. Archit. 8, 4–25 (2013)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Fowler, M.: UML Distilled: A Brief Guide to the Standard Object Modeling Language, 3rd edn. Addison-Wesley Longman Publishing (2003)

    Google Scholar 

  8. Gebser, M., Kaufmann, B., Neumann, A., Schaub, T.: Clasp: A conflict-driven answer set solver. In: Logic Programming and Nonmonotonic Reasoning, LPNMR 2007 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-72200-7_23

  9. Gelfond, M., Lifschitz, V.: The Stable Model Semantics For Logic Programming, pp. 1070–1080. MIT Press (1988)

    Google Scholar 

  10. Karagiannis, D., Mayr, H.C., Mylopoulos, J.: Domain-Specific Conceptual Modeling: Concepts, Methods and Tools, 1st edn. Springer Publishing Company (2016)

    Google Scholar 

  11. Karagiannis, D., Kühn, H.: Metamodelling platforms. In: Proceedings of the Third International Conference on E-Commerce and Web Technologies, EC-WEB ’02, 182 (2002). https://doi.org/10.5555/646162.680499

  12. Kloimüllner, C., Oetsch, J., Pührer, J., Tompits, H.: Kara: A system for visualising and visual editing of interpretations for answer-set programs. In: Applications of Declarative Programming and Knowledge Management, INAP 2011, WLP 2011 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-41524-1_20

  13. Kowalski, R., Sergot, M.: A logic-based calculus of events. New Gener. Comput. 4, 67–95 (1986). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03037383

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Lee, J., Palla, R.: Reformulating the situation calculus and the event calculus in the general theory of stable models and in answer set programming. J. Artif. Intell. Res. 43 (2012). https://doi.org/10.5555/2387915.2387930

  15. Levesque, H., Pirri, F., Reiter, R.: Foundations for the situation calculus. Electron. Trans. Artif. Intell. 2, 159–178 (1998). https://ep.liu.se/ej/etai/1998/005/

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  16. Lifschitz, V.: What is answer set programming? In: Proceedings of the 23rd National Conference on Artificial Intelligence - Volume 3, pp. 1594–1597 (2008). https://doi.org/10.5555/1620270.1620340

  17. McCarthy, J.: Stanford Artificial Intelligence Laboratory (1963). Situations, Actions, and Causal Laws. Memo (Stanford Artificial Intelligence Project). Comtex Scientific https://books.google.gr/books?id=iF8iGwAACAAJ

  18. Miller, R., Shanahan, M.: Some alternative formulations of the event calculus. Comput. Logic Logic Programm. Beyond, 452–490 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-45632-5_17

  19. Morgan, R., Grossmann, G., Schrefl, M., Stumptner, M., Payne, T.: VizDSL: Towards a graphical visualisation language for enterprise systems interoperability. In: Advanced Information Systems Engineering, CAiSE 2018 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-91563-0_27

  20. Mueller, E.: Commonsense Reasoning, 1st edn. Morgan Kaufmann (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  21. Musen, M.A., Protégé, T.: The Protégé Project: A look back and a look forward. In: AI Matters. Association of Computing Machinery Specific Interest Group in Artificial Intelligence, vol. 1(4) (2015). https://doi.org/10.1145/2757001.2757003

  22. Oetsch, J., Pührer, J., Tompits, H.: The SeaLion has landed: An IDE for answer-set programming–preliminary report. In: Applications of Declarative Programming and Knowledge Management, INAP 2011, WLP 2011, pp. 305–324 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-41524-1_19

    Google Scholar 

  23. Ribeiro, T., Inoue, K., Bourgne, G.: Combining answer set programs for adaptive and reactive reasoning. Theory Pract. Logic Programm. 13 (2013). https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01562133

  24. Siau, K., Loo, P.-P.: Identifying difficulties in learning UML. IS Management 23, 43–51 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1201/1078.10580530/46108.23.3.20060601/93706.5

    Google Scholar 

  25. Silva, A.R.da.: Model-driven engineering: A survey supported by the unified conceptual model. Comput. Lang. Syst. Struct. 43, 139–155 (2015)

    Google Scholar 

  26. Van Harmelen, F., Lifschitz, V., Porter, B.: Handbook of Knowledge Representation. Elsevier Science (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  27. Van Lambalgen, M., Hamm, F.: The Proper Treatment of Events (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  28. Visic, N., Fill, H.-G., Buchmann, R.A., Karagiannis, D.: A domain-specific language for modeling method definition: From requirements to grammar. In: 2015 IEEE 9th International Conference on Research Challenges in Information Science (RCIS), pp. 286–297 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1109/RCIS.2015.7128889

  29. Yamasaki, S., Sasakura, M.: A calculus effectively performing event formation with visualization. In: High-Performance Computing, ISHPC 2005, ALPS 2006, pp. 287–294 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-77704-5_27

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute of Computer Science, FORTH, Heraklion, Greece

    Nena Basina, Theodore Patkos & Dimitris Plexousakis

Authors
  1. Nena Basina
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Theodore Patkos
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Dimitris Plexousakis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Dimitris Plexousakis .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Computer Science, Research Group Knowledge Engineering, University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria

    Dimitris Karagiannis

  2. College of Engineering, Chonbuk National University, Jeonju, Korea (Republic of)

    Moonkun Lee

  3. School of Business, University of Applied Sciences and Arts Northwestern Switzerland, Olten, Switzerland

    Knut Hinkelmann

  4. OMiLAB gGmbH, Berlin, Germany

    Wilfrid Utz

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2022 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Basina, N., Patkos, T., Plexousakis, D. (2022). ECAVI: An Assistant for Reasoning About Actions and Change with the Event Calculus. In: Karagiannis, D., Lee, M., Hinkelmann, K., Utz, W. (eds) Domain-Specific Conceptual Modeling. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-93547-4_20

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-93547-4_20

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-93546-7

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-93547-4

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation