Advertisement

Using Oz for college timetabling

  • Martin Henz
  • Jörg Würtz
Resoning About Constrainsts
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1153)

Abstract

In this paper, we concentrate on a typical scheduling problem: the computation of a timetable for a German college. Like many other scheduling problems, this problem contains a variety of complex constraints and necessitates special-purpose search strategies. Techniques from Operations Research and traditional constraint logic programming are not able to express these constraints and search strategies on a sufficiently high level of abstraction. We show that the higher-order concurrent constraint language Oz provides this high-level expressivity, and can serve as a useful programming tool for college timetabling.

Keywords

Search Space Logic Program Finite Domain Constraint Logic Programming Basic Constraint 
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. [AB93]
    A. Aggoun and N. Beldiceanu. Extending CHIP in order to solve complex scheduling and placement problems. Mathl. Comput. Modelling, 17(7):57–73, 1993.Google Scholar
  2. [BGJ94]
    P. Boizumault, C. Gueret, and N. Jussien. Efficient labeling and constraint relaxation for solving time tabling problems. Technical Report ECRC-94-38, ECRC, 1994.Google Scholar
  3. [BO92]
    F. Benhamou and W.J. Older. Applying interval arithmetic to integer and boolean constraints. Technical report, Bell Northern Research, June 1992.Google Scholar
  4. [BP84]
    M. Bruynooghe and L.M. Pereira. Deduction revision by intelligent backtracking. In J.A. Campbell, editor, Implementations of PROLOG. Ellis Horwood Limited, 1984.Google Scholar
  5. [CCD94]
    B. Carlson, M. Carlsson, and D. Diaz. Entailment of finite domain constraints. In P. van Hentenryck, editor, Proceedings of the International Conference on Logic Programming, pages 339–353. The MIT Press, 1994.Google Scholar
  6. [Col90]
    A. Colmerauer. An introduction to PROLOG III. Communications of the ACM, pages 70–90, July 1990.Google Scholar
  7. [DC93]
    D. Diaz and P. Codognet. A minimal extension of the WAM for clp(FD). In Proceedings of the International Conference on Logic Programming, pages 774–790, Budapest, Hungary, 1993. MIT Press.Google Scholar
  8. [DVS+88]
    M. Dincbas, P. Van Hentenryck, H. Simonis, A. Aggoun, T. Graf, and F. Berthier. The constraint logic programming language CHIP. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Fifth Generation Computer Systems FGCS-88, pages 693–702, Tokyo, Japan, December 1988.Google Scholar
  9. [ECR95]
    ECRC. ECLiPSe, User Manual Version 3.5, December 1995.Google Scholar
  10. [JM87]
    J. Jaffar and S. Michaylov. Methodology and implementation of a CLP system. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Logic Programming, pages 196–218, 1987.Google Scholar
  11. [Mac77]
    A. K. Mackworth. Consistency in networks of relations. Artificial Intelligence, 8:99–118, 1977.Google Scholar
  12. [Meh94]
    Michael Mehl. Window programming in DFKI Oz. DFKI Oz documentation series, German Research Center for Artificial Intelligence (DFKI), Stuhlsatzenhausweg 3, D-66123 Saarbrücken, Germany, 1994.Google Scholar
  13. [Sch94]
    Christian Schulte. Open programming in DFKI Oz. DFKI Oz documentation series, German Research Center for Artificial Intelligence (DFKI), Stuhlsatzenhausweg 3, D-66123 Saarbrücken, Germany, 1994.Google Scholar
  14. [Sid93]
    G.A. Sidebottom. A Language for Optimizing Constraint Propagation. PhD thesis, Simon Fraser University, Canada, 1993.Google Scholar
  15. [Smo95a]
    Gert Smolka. The definition of Kernel Oz. In Andreas Podelski, editor, Constraints: Basics and Trends, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 910, pages 251–292. Springer-Verlag, 1995.Google Scholar
  16. [Smo95b]
    Gert Smolka. The Oz programming model. In Jan van Leeuwen, editor, Computer Science Today, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 1000, pages 324–343. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1995.Google Scholar
  17. [SR90]
    V.A. Saraswat and M. Rinard. Concurrent constraint programming. In Proceedings of the 7th Annual ACM Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages, pages 232–245, San Francisco, CA, January 1990.Google Scholar
  18. [SS94]
    Christian Schulte and Gert Smolka. Encapsulated search in higher-order concurrent constraint programming. In Maurice Bruynooghe, editor, Logic Programming: Proceedings of the 1994 International Symposium, pages 505–520, Ithaca, New York, USA, 13–17 November 1994. The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  19. [SSW94]
    Christian Schulte, Gert Smolka, and Jörg Würtz. Encapsulated search and constraint programming in Oz. In A.H. Borning, editor, Second Workshop on Principles and Practice of Constraint Programming, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 874, pages 134–150, Orcas Island, Washington, USA, 2–4 May 1994. Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  20. [ST95]
    G. Smolka and R. Treinen, editors. DFKI Oz Documentation Series. Deutsches Forschungszentrum für Künstliche Intelligenz GmbH, Stuhlsatzenhausweg 3, 66123 Saarbrücken, Germany, 1995.Google Scholar
  21. [VSD91]
    P. Van Hentenryck, V. Saraswat, and Y. Deville. Constraint processing in cc(FD). Technical report, Brown University, 1991. Unpublished.Google Scholar
  22. [VSD95]
    P. Van Hentenryck, V. Saraswat, and Y. Deville. Design, implementation and evaluation of the constraint language cc(FD). In Andreas Podelski, editor, Constraints: Basics and Trends, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 910. Springer Verlag, 1995.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1996

Authors and Affiliations

  • Martin Henz
    • 1
  • Jörg Würtz
    • 1
  1. 1.German Research Center for Artificial Intelligence (DFKI)SaarbrückenGermany

Personalised recommendations