Agent Programming with Declarative Goals

  • Koen V. Hindriks
  • Frank S. de Boer
  • Wiebe van der Hoek
  • John-Jules Ch. Meyer
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1986)


A long and lasting problem in agent research has been to close the gap between agent logics and agent programming frameworks. The main reason for this problem of establishing a link between agent logics and agent programming frameworks is identified and explained by the fact that agent programming frameworks have not incorporated the concept of a declarative goal. Instead, such frameworks have focused mainly on plans or goals-to-do instead of the end goals to be realised which are also called goals-to-be. In this paper, a new programming language called GOAL is introduced which incorporates such declarative goals. The notion of a commitment strategy - one of the main theoretical insights due to agent logics, which explains the relation between beliefs and goals - is used to construct a computational semantics for GOAL. Finally, a proof theory for proving properties of GOAL agents is introduced. An example program is proven correct by using this programming logic.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Gregory R. Andrews. Concurrent Programming: Principles and Practice. The Benjamin/Cummings Publishing Company, 1991Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    K. Mani Chandy and Jayadev Misra. Parallel Program Design. Addison-Wesley, 1988Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Philip R. Cohen and Hector J. Levesque. Intention is choice with commitment. Artificial Intelligence, 42:213–261, 1990CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Michael Fisher. Implementing BDI-like Systems by Direct Execution. In Proceedings of the Fifteenth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI). Morgan Kaufmann,1997Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Giuseppe De Giacomo, Yves Lespérance, and Hector Levesque. ConGolog, a Concurrent Programming Language Based on the Situation Calculus. Artificial Intelligence, accepted for publication.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    K. Hindriks, F. de Boer, W. van der Hoek, and J.-J. Meyer. A Formal Embedding of AgentSpeak(L) in 3APL. In G. Antoniou and J. Slaney, editors, Advanced Topics in Artificial Intelligence,pages 155–166. Springer-Verlag, 1998Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    K. Hindriks, F. de Boer, W. van der Hoek, and J.-J. Meyer. An Operational Semantics for the SingleAgent Core ofAGENT-0. Technical ReportUU-CS-1999-30, Department of Computer Science, University Utrecht, 1999Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    K. Hindriks, F. de Boer, W. van der Hoek, and J.-J. Meyer. Agent Programming in 3APL.Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems, 2(4):357–401, 1999CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Koen V. Hindriks, Frank S. de Boer, Wiebe van der Hoek, and John-Jules Ch. Meyer. Agent Programming with Declarative Goals. Technical ReportUU-CS-2000-16, Department of Computer Science, University Utrecht, 2000Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Koen V. Hindriks, Yves Lespérance, and Hector J. Levesque. An Embedding of ConGolog in 3APL. InWerner Horn, editor, Proceedings of the 14th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pages 558–562, 2000Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Zohar Manna and Amir Pnueli. The Temporal Logic of Reactive and Concurrent Systems.Springer-Verlag, 1992Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    John-Jules Ch. Meyer, Wiebe van der Hoek, and Bernd van Linder. A Logical Approach to the Dynamics of Commitments. Aritificial Intelligence, 113:1–40, 1999zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Anand S. Rao. AgentSpeak(L): BDI Agents Speak Out in a Logical Computable Language.InW. van derVelde and J.W. Perram, editors, Agents Breaking Away, 1996Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Anand S. Rao. Decision procedures for propositional linear-time belief-desire-intention logics.In M.J. Wooldridge, J.P. Müller, and M. Tambe, editors, Intelligent Agents II. Springer-Verlag, 1996Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Anand S. Rao and Michael P. Georgeff. Intentions and Rational Commitment. Technical Report8, Australian Artificial Intelligence Institute, Melbourne, Australia, 1990Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Steven Shapiro and Yves Lespérance. Modeling Multiagent Systems with CASL—AFeature Interaction Resolution Application. In C. Castelfranchi and Y. Lespérance, editors, Intelligent Agents VII (LNAI). Springer-Verlag, 2001. In this volumeGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Yoav Shoham. Agent-oriented programming.Artificial Intelligence, 60:51–92, 1993.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Sarah Rebecca Thomas. PLACA, An Agent Oriented Programming Language. PhD thesis,Department of Computer Science, Stanford University, 1993Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Wayne Wobcke. On the Correctness of PRS Agent Programs. In N.R. Jennings and Y. Lespérance, editor, Intelligent Agents VI (LNAI1757). Springer-Verlag, 2000Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • Koen V. Hindriks
    • 1
  • Frank S. de Boer
    • 1
  • Wiebe van der Hoek
    • 1
  • John-Jules Ch. Meyer
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute of Information & Computing SciencesUniversity UtrechtUtrecht

Personalised recommendations