CL 2000: Computational Logic — CL 2000 pp 837-851 | Cite as
Including Diagnostic Information in Configuration Models
Abstract
This work presents a new formal model for software configuration. The configuration knowledge is stored in a configuration model that is specified using a rule-based language. The language has a complete declarative semantics analogous to the stable model semantics for normal logic programs. In addition, a new method to add diagnostic information in configuration models is presented. The main idea is to divide the configuration process into two stages. At the first stage the user requirements are processed to check whether there exist any suitable configurations in the configuration model. In the second stage unsatisfiable requirements are diagnosed using a diagnostic model. The diagnostic model is constructed from the configuration model by adding a new set of atoms that represent the possible error conditions. The diagnostic output also explains why each problematic component was included in the configuration. As an example, a subset of the configuration problem for the Debian GNU/Linux system is formalized using the new rule-based language. Both configuration and diagnostic models of the problem are presented. The rule-language is implemented using an existing implementation of the stable model semantics, the Smodels system.
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
- 1.Debian GNU/Linux. Available at: http://www.debian.org~L.
- 2.W.F. Dowling and J.H. Gallier. Linear-time algorithms for testing the satisfiability of propositional Horn formulae. Journal of Logic Programming, 3:267–284, 1984.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
- 3.M. Gelfond and V. Lifschitz. The stable model semantics for logic programming. In Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Logic Programming, pages 1070–1080, Seattle, USA, August 1988. The MIT Press.Google Scholar
- 4.W. Marek and M. Truszczyński. Autoepistemic logic. Journal of the Association for Computing Machinery, 38:588–619, 1991.MATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
- 5.Ilkka Niemelä, Patrik Simons, and Timo Soininen. Stable model semantics of weight constraint rules. In Proceedings of the Fifth Interational Conference on Logic Programming and Nonmonotonic Reasoning. Springer-Verlag, December 1999.Google Scholar
- 6.Daniel Sabin and Rainer Weigel. Product configuration frameworks — a survey. IEEE Intelligent Systems & their applications, pages 42–49, October 1998.Google Scholar
- 7.P. Simons. Efficient implementation of the stable model semantics for normal logic programs. Research Report 35, Helsinki University of Technology, Helsinki, Finland, September 1995.Google Scholar
- 8.P. Simons. Extending the stable model semantics with more expressive rules. In Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Logic Programming and Nonmonotonic Reasoning, pages 305–316, El Paso, Texas, USA, December 1999. Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
- 9.Timo Soininen and Ilkka Niemelä. Developing a declarative rule language for applications in product configuration. In Proceedings of the First International Workshop on Practical Aspects of Declarative Languages. Springer-Verlag, January 1999.Google Scholar
- 10.T. Syrjänen. A rule-based formal model of software configuration. Research Report A 55, Helsinki University of Technology, Laboratory for Theoretical Computer Science, Helsinki, Finland, December 1999.Google Scholar
- 11.M.H. van Emden and R.A. Kowalski. The semantics of predicate logic as a programming language. Journal of the Association for Computing Machinery, 23:733–742, 1976.MATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
- 12.B. Wielinga and G. Schreiber. Configuration-design problem solving. IEEE Expert, 122:49–56, March–April 1997.Google Scholar