An Agent-Based Domain Specific Framework for Rapid Prototyping of Applications in Evolutionary Biology

  • Tran Cao Son
  • Enrico Pontelli
  • Desh Ranjan
  • Brook Milligan
  • Gopal Gupta
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 2990)

Abstract

In this paper we present a brief overview of the ΦLOG project, aimed at the development of a domain specific framework for the rapid prototyping of applications in evolutionary biology. This includes the development of a domain specific language, called ΦLOG, and an agent-based implementation for the monitoring and execution of ΦLOG’s programs. A ΦLOG program – representing an intended application from an evolutionary biologist – is a specification of what to do to achieve her/his goal. The execution and monitoring component of our system will automatically figure out how to do it. We achieve that by viewing the available bioinformatic tools and data repositories as web services and casting the problem of execution of a sequence of bioinformatic services (possibly with loops, branches, and conditionals, specified by biologists) as the web services composition problem.

Keywords

Rapid Prototype Service Description Horn Clause Partial Plan Service Broker 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    van Deursen, A., Klint, P., Visser, J.: Domain-Specific Languages: an Annotated Bibliography (2000), http://www.cwi.nl/~arie/papers/dslbib
  2. 2.
    Maddison, D.R., Swofford, D., Maddison, W.: NEXUS: An Extensible File Format for Systematic Information. Syst. Biol. 464, 590–621 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Gonner, G., Hallet, M.: Darwin 2.0. Technical report, ETH-Zurich (2000)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Baker, P., Brass, A., Bechoofer, S., Goble, C., Paton, N., Stevens, R.: TAMBIS – Transparent Access to Multiple Bioinformatics Information Sources. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Intelligent Systems for Molecular Biology (1998)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Maddison, D.R., Maddison, W.: Mesquite: A Modular System for Evolutionary Analysi. Technical report, U. of Arizona (2001)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Standardizing Biological Data Interchange Through Web Services (2001), omnigene.sourceforge.net
  7. 7.
    Swofford, D.L., Olsen, G.J., Waddell, P.J., Hillis, D.M.: Phylogenetic inference. In: Molecular Systematics, pp. 407–514. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland (1996)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Schmidt, D.: Denotational Semantics: a Methodology for Language Development. W.C. Brown Publishers (1986)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Levesque, H., Reiter, R., Lesperance, Y., Lin, F., Scherl, R.: GOLOG: A logic programming language for dynamic domains. Journal of Logic Programming 31, 59–84 (1997)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Pontelli, E., Ranjan, D., Milligan, B., Gupta, G.: Design and Implementation of a Domain Specific Language for Phylogenetic Inference. Journal of Bioinformatics and Computational Biology 1, 1–29 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    DAML-S Coalition: Ankolekar, A., Burstein, M., Hobbs, J., Lassila, O., Martin, D., McIlraith, S., Narayanan, S., Paolucci, M., Payne, T., Sycara, K., Zeng, H.: DAML-S: Semantic markup for Web services. In: Proc. International Semantic Web Working Symposium (SWWS), pp. 411–430 (2001)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Stevens, R.: Bio-Ontology Reference Collection, cs.man.ac.uk/~stevens/onto-publications.html
  13. 13.
    Bio-Ontologies Consortium, http://www.bioontology.org
  14. 14.
    Cheyer, A., Martin, D.: The Open Agent Architecture. Journal of Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems 4, 143–148 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    McIlraith, S., Son, T.: Adapting golog for composition of semantic web services. In: Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR 2002), pp. 482–493. Morgan Kaufmann Publisher, San Francisco (2002)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    McIlraith, S., Son, T., Zeng, H.: Semantic Web services. IEEE Intelligent Systems (Special Issue on the Semantic Web) 16, 46–53 (2001)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Fowler, J., Perry, B., Nodine, M., Bargmeyer, B.: Agent-Based Semantic Interoperability in InfoSleuth. SIGMOD Record 28(1), 60–67 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Sycara, K., Paolucci, M., van Velsen, M., Giampapa, J.: The retsina mas infrastructure. In: Autonomous Agents and MAS (2003) (to appear)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Leite, J., Alferes, J., Pereira, L.: MINERVA: a Dynamic Logic Programeing Agent Architecture. In: Meyer, J.-J.C., Tambe, M. (eds.) ATAL 2001. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 2333, p. 141. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Gupta, G., Pontelli, E.: Specification, Implementation, and Verification of Domain Specific Languages: a Logic Programming-based Approach. In: Computational Logic: from Logic Programming into the Future, Springer, Heidelberg (2001)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Reiter, R.: KNOWLEDGE IN ACTION: Logical Foundations for Describing and Implementing Dynamical Systems. MIT Press, Cambridge (2001)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Jones, N.: Introduction to Partial Evaluation. ACM Computing Survey 28, 480–503 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Sahlin, D.: The mixtus approach to the automatic evaluation of full prolog. In: Proceedings of the North American Conference on Logic Programming, pp. 377–398. MIT Press, Cambridge (1990)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Niemela, I., Simons, P.: Smodels - An Implementation of the Stable Model and Well-Founded Semantics for Normal LP. In: Logic Programming and Nonmonotonic Reasoning, pp. 421–430. Springer, Heidelberg (1997)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    De Giacomo, G., Lespérance, Y., Levesque, H.: ConGolog, a concurrent programming language based on the situation calculus. Artificial Intelligence 121, 109–169 (2000)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Son, T., Baral, C., McIlraith, S.: Domain dependent knowledge in planning - an answer set planning approach. In: Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Logic Programming and NonMonotonic Reasoning, Vienna, pp. 226–239 (2001)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Son, T., Pontelli, E.: Reasoning about actions in prioritized default theory. In: Flesca, S., Greco, S., Leone, N., Ianni, G. (eds.) JELIA 2002. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 2424, pp. 369–381. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Lifschitz, V.: Answer set planning. In: International Conference on Logic Programming, pp. 23–37 (1999)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Bentley, J.: Programming pearls: Little languages. Communications of the ACM 29, 711–721 (1986)CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Tran Cao Son
    • 1
  • Enrico Pontelli
    • 1
  • Desh Ranjan
    • 1
  • Brook Milligan
    • 2
  • Gopal Gupta
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceNew Mexico State University 
  2. 2.Department of BiologyNew Mexico State University 
  3. 3.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of Texas at Dallas 

Personalised recommendations