Advertisement

Golog Speaks the BDI Language

  • Sebastian Sardina
  • Yves Lespérance
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 5919)

Abstract

In this paper, we relate two of the most well developed approaches to agent-oriented programming, namely, BDI (Belief-Desire-Intention) style programming and “Golog-like” high-level programming. In particular, we show how “Golog-like” programming languages can be used to develop BDI-style agent systems. The contribution of this paper is twofold. First, it demonstrates how practical agent systems can be developed using high-level languages like Golog or IndiGolog. Second, it provides BDI languages a clear classical-logic-based semantics and a powerful logical foundation for incorporating new reasoning capabilities not present in typical BDI systems.

Keywords

Failure Recovery Derivation Rule Primitive Action Situation Calculus Hierarchical Task Network 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Belecheanu, R.A., Munroe, S., Luck, M., Payne, T., Miller, T., McBurney, P., Pechoucek, M.: Commercial applications of agents: Lessons, experiences and challenges. In: Proceedings of Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems (AAMAS), pp. 1549–1555 (2006)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Benfield, S.S., Hendrickson, J., Galanti, D.: Making a strong business case for multiagent technology. In: Proceedings of Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems (AAMAS), pp. 10–15 (2006)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bordini, R.H., Hübner, J.F., Wooldridge, M.: Programming Multi-agent Systems in AgentSpeak Using Jason. Wiley Series in Agent Technology. Wiley, Chichester (2007)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bratman, M.E.: Intentions, Plans, and Practical Reason. Harvard University Press, Cambridge (1987)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Busetta, P., Rönnquist, R., Hodgson, A., Lucas, A.: JACK intelligent agents: Components for intelligent agents in Java. AgentLink Newsletter 2, 2–5 (1999)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cohen, P.R., Levesque, H.J.: Intention is choice with commitment. Artificial Intelligence Journal 42, 213–261 (1990)zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Dastani, M.: 2APL: A practical agent programming language. Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems 16(3), 214–248 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    De Giacomo, G., Lespérance, Y., Levesque, H.J.: ConGolog, a concurrent programming language based on the situation calculus. Artificial Intelligence Journal 121(1–2), 109–169 (2000)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    De Giacomo, G., Lespérance, Y., Levesque, H.J., Sardina, S.: IndiGolog: A high-level programming language for embedded reasoning agents. In: Bordini, R.H., Dastani, M., Dix, J., Fallah-Seghrouchni, A.E. (eds.) Multi-Agent Programming: Languages, Platforms and Applications, ch. 2, pp. 31–72. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Dennett, D.: The Intentional Stance. The MIT Press, Cambridge (1987)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Dix, J., Muñoz-Avila, H., Nau, D.S., Zhang, L.: IMPACTing SHOP: Putting an AI planner into a multi-agent environment. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence 37(4), 381–407 (2003)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gabaldon, A.: Programming hierarchical task networks in the situation calculus. In: Proc. of AIPS 2002 Workshop on On-line Planning and Scheduling, Toulouse, France (April 2002)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Georgeff, M.P., Ingrand, F.F.: Decision making in an embedded reasoning system. In: Proceedings of the International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI), Detroit, USA, pp. 972–978 (1989)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hindriks, K.V., de Boer, F.S., van der Hoek, W., Meyer, J.-J.: A formal semantics for an abstract agent programming language. In: Proceedings of the International Workshop on Agent Theories, Architectures, and Languages (ATAL), pp. 215–229 (1998)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hindriks, K.V., de Boer, F.S., van der Hoek, W., Meyer, J.-J.: Agent programming in 3APL. Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems 2, 357–401 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hindriks, K.V., Lespérance, Y., Levesque, H.J.: An embedding of ConGolog in 3APL. In: Proceedings of the European Conference in Artificial Intelligence (ECAI), pp. 558–562 (2000)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hübner, J.F., Bordini, R.H., Wooldridge, M.: Programming declarative goals using plan patterns. In: Baldoni, M., Endriss, U. (eds.) DALT 2006. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 4327, pp. 123–140. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Levesque, H.J., Reiter, R., Lespérance, Y., Lin, F., Scherl, R.B.: GOLOG: A logic programming language for dynamic domains. Journal of Logic Programming 31, 59–84 (1997)zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Ljungberg, M., Lucas, A.: The OASIS air-traffic management system. In: Proceedings of the Pacific Rim International Conference on Artificial Intelligence, PRICAI (1992)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    McCarthy, J., Hayes, P.J.: Some philosophical problems from the standpoint of artificial intelligence. Machine Intelligence 4, 463–502 (1969)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Pokahr, A., Braubach, L., Lamersdorf, W.: JADEX: Implementing a BDI-infrastructure for JADE agents. EXP - in search of innovation (Special Issue on JADE) 3(3), 76–85 (2003)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Pollack, M.E.: The uses of plans. Artificial Intelligence Journal 57(1), 43–68 (1992)CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Rao, A.S.: Agentspeak(L): BDI agents speak out in a logical computable language. In: Velde, W.V., Perram, J.W. (eds.) MAAMAW 1996. LNCS, vol. 1038, pp. 42–55. Springer, Heidelberg (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Rao, A.S., Georgeff, M.P.: Modeling rational agents within a BDI-architecture. In: Proceedings of Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR), pp. 473–484 (1991)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Rao, A.S., Georgeff, M.P.: An abstract architecture for rational agents. In: Proceedings of Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR), pp. 438–449 (1992)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Reiter, R.: Knowledge in Action. Logical Foundations for Specifying and Implementing Dynamical Systems. The MIT Press, Cambridge (2001)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Sardina, S., De Giacomo, G., Lespérance, Y., Levesque, H.J.: On the semantics of deliberation in IndiGolog – From theory to implementation. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence 41(2–4), 259–299 (2004)zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Sardina, S., Padgham, L.: Goals in the context of BDI plan failure and planning. In: Durfee, E.H., Yokoo, M., Huhns, M.N., Shehory, O. (eds.) Proceedings of Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems (AAMAS), pp. 16–23 (2007)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Thielscher, M.: FLUX: A logic programming method for reasoning agents. Theory and Practice of Logic Programming 5(4–5), 533–565 (2005); Special Issue of Theory and Practice of Logic Programming on Constraint Handling RuleszbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Winikoff, M., Padgham, L., Harland, J., Thangarajah, J.: Declarative & procedural goals in intelligent agent systems. In: Proceedings of Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR), pp. 470–481 (2002)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sebastian Sardina
    • 1
  • Yves Lespérance
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Computer Science and ITRMIT UniversityMelbourneAustralia
  2. 2.Department of Computer Science and EngineeringYork UniversityTorontoCanada

Personalised recommendations