User-oriented problem abstractions in scheduling

  • Federico Pecora
  • Riccardo Rasconi
  • Gabriella Cortellessa
  • Amedeo Cesta


In this paper we describe a modeling framework aimed at facilitating the customization and deployment of artificial intelligence (AI) scheduling technology in real-world contexts. Specifically, we describe an architecture aimed at facilitating software product line development in the context of scheduling systems. The framework is based on two layers of abstraction: a first layer providing an interface with the scheduling technology, on top of which we define a formalism to abstract domain-specific concepts. We show how this two-layer modeling framework provides a versatile formalism for defining user-oriented problem abstractions, which is pivotal for facilitating interaction between domain experts and technologists. Moreover, we describe a graphical user interface (GUI)-enhanced tool which allows the domain expert to interact with the underlying core scheduling technology in domain-specific terms. This is achieved by automatically instantiating an abstract GUI template on top of the second modeling layer.


Domain elicitation Scheduling Tool customization Reuse Fast prototyping 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Anastasopoulos M, Bayer J, Flege O, Gacek C (2000) A process for product line architecture creation and evaluation. Technical report, PuLSE-DSSA version 2.0. Technical report IESE report no. 038.00/E, Fraunhofer Institute for Experimental Software Engineering (IESE)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bahadori S, Cesta A, Iocchi L, Leone G, Nardi D, Pecora F, Rasconi R, Scozzafava L (2004) Towards ambient intelligence for the domestic care of the elderly. In: Remagnino P, Foresti G, Ellis T (eds.) Ambient intelligence: a novel paradigm, Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New YorkGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bhansali S (1996) A knowledge-assisted approach to parameterized reuse. Int J Softw Eng Knowl Eng 6:641–671Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Brucker P, Drexl A, Mohring R, Neumann K, Pesch E (1998) Resource-constrained project scheduling: notation, classification, models, and methods. Eur J Oper Res 112:3–412Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Carnegie Mellon University, Software Engineering Institute (2006) A framework for software product line practice, version 4.2:
  6. 6.
    Cesta A, Rasconi R (2003) Execution monitoring and schedule revision for O-OSCAR: a preliminary report. In: Proceedings of the workshop on online constraint solving at CP-03. Kinsale Co., CorkGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cesta A, Bazzica P, Casonato G (1997) An object-oriented scheduling architecture for managing the data relay satellite requests. In: Proceedings of the international workshop on planning and scheduling for space exploration and science. Jet Propulsion Laboratory Internal Report. Oxford, CA, October 28–30, 1997Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Cesta A, Cortellessa G, Oddi A, Policella N, Susi A (2001) A constraint-based architecture for flexible support to activity scheduling. In: Floriana Esposito (ed.) Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence (LNAI), Lecture Notes in Computer Science (LNCS), Springer, Vol. 2175 3-540-42601-9Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Cesta A, Oddi A, Smith S (2002) A constrained-based Lecture notes in computer science (LNCs), Springer, Vol. 2175, 3-540-42601-9 for project scheduling with time windows. J Heuristics 8(1):109–135Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Cesta A, Cortellessa G, Pecora F, Rasconi R (2005a) Mediating the knowledge of end-users and technologists: a problem in the development of scheduling technology. In: Proceedings of the IASTED international conference on artificial intelligence and applications (AIA 2005). Innsbruck, Austria, pp. 14–16Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Cesta A, Farinelli A, Iocchi L, Leone G, Nardi D, Pecora F, Rasconi R (2005b) Robotically rich environments for supporting elderly people at home: the RoboCare experience. In: Proceedings of the AISB'05 workshop on Robot companions. University of Hertfordshire. Hatfield, UKGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Dechter R, Meiri I, Pearl J (1991) Temporal constraint networks. Artif Intell 49:61–95Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Gomaa H (1995) Reusable software requirements and architectures for families of systems. J Syst Softw 28(3):189–202, DOI
  14. 14.
    Kolisch R, Schwindt C, Sprecher A (1998) Benchmark instances for project scheduling problems. In: Weglarz J (ed.) Project scheduling–-recent models, algorithms and applications. Kluwer, Boston, pp. 192–212Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    McCluskey T, Liu D, Simpson R (2003) GIPO II: HTN planning in a tool-supported knowledge engineering environment. In: Proceedings of ICAPS'03, Trento (Italy), AAAI, Palo Alto, CAGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Muscettola N (1994) HSTS: Integrating planning and scheduling. In: Zweben M, Fox MS (eds) Intelligent scheduling, Morgan Kaufmann, San Fransciso, pp. 169–212Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Muscettola N, Smith S, Cesta A, D'Aloisi D (1992) Coordinating space telescope operations in an integrated planning and scheduling framework. IEEE Control Syst 12(1):28–37Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Oddi A, Policella N, Cesta A, Cortellessa G (2003) Generating high quality schedules for a spacecraft memory downlink problem. In: Principles and practice of constraint programming—CP 2003, 9th international conference, CP 2003, Kinsale, Ireland, September 29—October 3, vol. 2833. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York, pp. 570–584Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Schwindt C (1998) Generation of resource-constrained project scheduling problems subject to temporal consraints. Technical report, Universität Karlsruhe, Report WIOR-543Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Smith S, Becker M (1997) An ontology for constructing scheduling systems. In: Working notes of 1997 AAAI symposium on ontological engineering. AAAI, Palo Alto, CAGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Smith S, Lassila O, Becker M (1996) Configurable, mixed-initiative systems for planning and scheduling. In: Tate A (ed.) Advanced planning technology. AAAI, Menlo Park, CAGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Smith S, Hildum D, Crimm D (2003) Interactive resource management in the comirem planner. In: IJCAI-03 workshop on mixed-initiative intelligent systems, Acapulco, MexicoGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Van Hentenryck P, Michel L (2004) Scheduling Abstractions for local search. In: Proceedings of CP-AI-OR'04, Nice, FranceGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Weiss DM, Lai CTR (1999) Software product-line engineering: a family based software development process. Addison Wesley, ReadingGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Federico Pecora
    • 1
    • 2
  • Riccardo Rasconi
    • 1
    • 3
  • Gabriella Cortellessa
    • 1
  • Amedeo Cesta
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute for Cognitive Science and TechnologyItalian National Research CouncilRomeItaly
  2. 2.Dipartimento di Informatica e SistemisticaUniversity of RomeRomeItaly
  3. 3.Dipartimento di Informatica, Sistemistica e TelematicaUniversity of GenoaGenoaItaly

Personalised recommendations