Exploiting the Hierarchical Structure of Rule-Based Specifications for Decision Planning

  • Artur Boronat
  • Roberto Bruni
  • Alberto Lluch Lafuente
  • Ugo Montanari
  • Generoso Paolillo
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 6117)

Abstract

Rule-based specifications have been very successful as a declarative approach in many domains, due to the handy yet solid foundations offered by rule-based machineries like term and graph rewriting. Realistic problems, however, call for suitable techniques to guarantee scalability. For instance, many domains exhibit a hierarchical structure that can be exploited conveniently. This is particularly evident for composition associations of models. We propose an explicit representation of such structured models and a methodology that exploits it for the description and analysis of model- and rule-based systems. The approach is presented in the framework of rewriting logic and its efficient implementation in the rewrite engine Maude and is illustrated with a case study.

References

  1. 1.
    Aldini, A., Bernardo, M., Corradini, F.: A process algebraic approach to software architecture design. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bistarelli, S., Montanari, U., Rossi, F.: Semiring-based constraint satisfaction and optimization. Journal of the ACM 44(2), 201–236 (1997)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Boronat, A., Meseguer, J.: An algebraic semantics for MOF. In: Fiadeiro, J.L., Inverardi, P. (eds.) FASE 2008. LNCS, vol. 4961, pp. 377–391. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bruni, R., Lluch Lafuente, A., Montanari, U., Tuosto, E.: Style based architectural reconfigurations. EATCS 94, 161–180 (2008)MATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Clavel, M., Durán, F., Eker, S., Lincoln, P., Martí-Oliet, N., Meseguer, J., Talcott, C. (eds.): All About Maude - A High-Performance Logical Framework. LNCS, vol. 4350. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)MATHGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Coles, A., Fox, M., Halsey, K., Long, D., Smith, A.: Managing concurrency in temporal planning using planner-scheduler interaction. Journal on Artificial Intelligence 173(1), 1–44 (2009)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ehrig, H., Ehrig, K., Prange, U., Taentzer, G.: Fundamentals of Algebraic Graph Transformation. Springer, Heidelberg (March 2006)MATHGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Giunchiglia, F., Traverso, P.: Planning as model checking. In: Biundo, S., Fox, M. (eds.) ECP 1999. LNCS, vol. 1809, pp. 1–20. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hölzl, M., Meier, M., Wirsing, M.: Which soft constraints do you prefer? In: Proceedings of the 7th International Workshop on Rewriting Logic and its Applications (WRLA 2008). ENTCS, vol. 238(3), pp. 189–205. Elsevier, Amsterdam (2008)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Katoen, J.-P.: Advances in probabilistic model checking. In: Barthe, G., Hermenegildo, M.V. (eds.) VMCAI 2010. LNCS, vol. 5944, p. 25. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kumar, N., Sen, K., Meseguer, J., Agha, G.: A rewriting based model for probabilistic distributed object systems. In: Najm, E., Nestmann, U., Stevens, P. (eds.) FMOODS 2003. LNCS, vol. 2884, pp. 32–46. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lanese, I., Montanari, U.: Synchronization algebras with mobility for graph transformations. In: Proceedings of the 3rd Joint Workshops on Foundations of Global Ubiquitous Computing (FGUC 2004). ENTCS, vol. 138(1), pp. 43–60. Elsevier, Amsterdam (2005)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lluch Lafuente, A., Montanari, U.: Quantitative mu-calculus and CTL defined over constraint semirings. TCS 346(1), 135–160 (2005)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Meseguer, J.: Conditional rewriting logic as a united model of concurrency. TCS 96(1), 73–155 (1992)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ölveczky, P.C., Meseguer, J.: Specification of real-time and hybrid systems in rewriting logic. TCS 285(2), 359–405 (2002)MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Plotkin, G.D.: A structural approach to operational semantics. Journal of Logic and Algebraic Programming 60-61, 17–139 (2004)CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Rote, G.: A systolic array algorithm for the algebraic path problem (shortest paths; matrix inversion). Journal on Computing 34(3) (1985)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Russell, S.J., Norvig, P.: Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach. Pearson Education, London (2003)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Seidewitz, E.: What models mean. IEEE Journal on Software 20(5), 26–32 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Verdejo, A., Martí-Oliet, N.: Executable structural operational semantics in Maude. Journal of Logic and Algebraic Programming 67(1-2), 226–293 (2006)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Artur Boronat
    • 1
  • Roberto Bruni
    • 2
  • Alberto Lluch Lafuente
    • 3
  • Ugo Montanari
    • 2
  • Generoso Paolillo
    • 4
  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of LeicesterUK
  2. 2.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of PisaItaly
  3. 3.IMT Institute for Advanced Studies LuccaItaly
  4. 4.Laboratorio CINI-ITEM Carlo SavyNaplesItaly

Personalised recommendations