Control Structures of Rule-Based Agent Languages
An important issue when defining a rule-based agent programming language is the design of interpreters for these programming languages. Since these languages are all based on some notion of rule, an interpreter must provide some means of selection from a set of such rules. We provide a concrete and intuitive ordering on rules on which this selection can be based. This ordering is inspired by the common sense metaphor of intelligent agents in Artificial Intelligence. Furthermore, we provide a language with a formal semantics for programming agent interpreters. The main idea is not to integrate this language into the agent language itself, but to provide the constructs for building interpreters at another (meta) level of specification. The operational semantics is accordingly specified at the meta level, by means of a (meta) transition system. Using this language we make a comparison between several interpreters for agent languages in the literature.
KeywordsOperational Semantic Belief Base Agent Program Execution Phase Goal Base
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 1.Thomas Cooper and Nancy Wogrin. Rule-based Programming with OPS5. Morgan Kaufmann, 1988.Google Scholar
- 2.Koen V. Hindriks, Frank S. de Boer, Wiebe van der Hoek, and John-Jules Ch. Meyer. A Formal Embedding of AgentSpeak(L) in 3APL. Technical Report UU-CS-1998-07, University Utrecht, Department of Computer Science, 1998.Google Scholar
- 3.Koen V. Hindriks, Frank S. de Boer, Wiebe van der Hoek, and John-Jules Ch. Meyer. Formal Semantics for an Abstract Agent Programming Language. In Munindar P. Singh, Anand Rao, and Michael J. Wooldridge, editors, Intelligent Agents IV (LNAI 1365), pages 215–229, 1998.Google Scholar
- 5.Robert Kowalski, F. Toni, and G. Wetzel. Towards a declarative and eficient glass-box clp language. In N.E. Fuchs and G. Gottlob, editors, Proc. of the 10th Logic Programming Workshop. University of Zurich (ifi-Report Nr. 94.10), 1994.Google Scholar
- 6.J.W. Lloyd. Foundations of Logic Programming. Springer, 1987.Google Scholar
- 7.J. P. Müller. The right agent (architecture) to do the right thing. In J.P. Müller, M. P. Singh, and A. S. Rao, editors, Intelligent Agents V — Proceedings of the Fifth International Workshop on Agent Theories, Architectures, and Languages (ATAL-98), Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence. Springer-Verlag, Heidelberg, 1999. In this volume.Google Scholar
- 8.G. Plotkin. A structural approach to operational semantics. Technical report, Aarhus University, Computer Science Department, 1981.Google Scholar
- 9.Anand S. Rao. AgentSpeak(L): BDI Agents Speak Out in a Logical Computable Language. In W. van der Velde and J.W. Perram, editors, Agents Breaking Away, pages 42–55. Springer, 1996.Google Scholar
- 11.Sarah Rebecca Thomas. PLACA, An Agent Oriented Programming Language. PhD thesis, Department of Computer Science, Stanford University, 1993.Google Scholar
- 12.M. J. Wooldridge and S. D. Parsons. Intention reconsideration reconsidered. In J. P. Müller, M. P. Singh, and A. S. Rao, editors, Intelligent Agents V — Proceedings of the Fifth International Workshop on Agent Theories, Architectures, and Languages (ATAL-98), Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence. Springer-Verlag, Heidelberg, 1999. In this volume.Google Scholar