Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Outline

Title
Abstract
Introduction
Methodology of Describing Dynamic Domains in Alm
Methodology of Language Use
Related Work
Conclusions and Future Work
References
All Topics
Computer Science
Computational Theory and Mathematics

Modular action language

Profile image of Daniela InclezanDaniela Inclezan

2015, Theory and Practice of Logic Programming

Abstract

The paper introduces a new modular action language, ALM, and illustrates the methodology of its use. It is based on the approach of Gelfond and Lifschitz (1993; 1998) in which a high-level action language is used as a front end for a logic programming system description. The resulting logic programming representation is used to perform various computational tasks. The methodology based on existing action languages works well for small and even medium size systems, but is not meant to deal with larger systems that require structuring of knowledge. ALM is meant to remedy this problem. Structuring of knowledge in ALM is supported by the concepts of module (a formal description of a specific piece of knowledge packaged as a unit), module hierarchy, and library, and by the division of a system description of ALM into two parts: theory and structure. A theory consists of one or more modules with a common theme, possibly organized into a module hierarchy based on a dependency relation. It contains declarations of sorts, attributes, and properties of the domain together with axioms describing them. Structures are used to describe the domain's objects. These features, together with the means for defining classes of a domain as special cases of previously defined ones, facilitate the stepwise development, testing, and readability of a knowledge base, as well as the creation of knowledge representation libraries.

Related papers

Perspectives on logic-based approaches for reasoning about actions and change
Andrea Formisano

Lecture Notes in Computer Science (including subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics), 2011

Action languages have gained popularity as a means for declaratively describing planning domains. This paper overviews two action languages, the Boolean language B and its multi-valued counterpart B M V . The paper analyzes some of the issues in using two alternative logic programming approaches (Answer Set Programming and Constraint Logic Programming over Finite Domains) for planning with B and B M V specifications. In particular, the paper provides an experimental comparison between these alternative implementation approaches.

View PDFchevron_right
Reasoning about Multi-agent Domains Using Action Language C\ mathcal {C}: A Preliminary Study
Chitta Baral

2010

This paper investigates the use of action languages, originally developed for representing and reasoning about single-agent domains, in modeling multi-agent domains. We use the action language C\ mathcal {C} and show that minimal extensions are sufficient to capture several multi-agent domains from the literature. The paper also exposes some limitations of action languages in modeling a specific set of features in multi-agent domains.

View PDFchevron_right
A CLIB-Inspired Library of Commonsense Knowledge in Modular Action Language ALM
Daniela Inclezan

2015

This paper describes a modular action language, ALM, dedicated to the specification of complex dynamic systems. One of the main goals of the language is to facilitate the development and testing of knowledge representation libraries. We present the implementation of a large scale library of commonsense concepts, achieved by porting knowledge from the Component Library (CLIB) into ALM. Our choice of CLIB as a source of inspiration is justified by the well-founded methodology used by its authors in selecting the general concepts it contains, and its extensive testing in the context of the Automated User-centered Reasoning and Acquisition System. The resulting ALM library has the additional advantage of incorporating established knowledge representation methodologies developed in the action language research community.

View PDFchevron_right
An action language for multi-agent domains
Son Tran

Artificial Intelligence, 2021

In multi-agent domains, the actions performed by an agent may not only modify the world and the agent's knowledge and beliefs about the world, but may also change the knowledge and beliefs of other agents about the world and their own knowledge and beliefs about other agents' knowledge and beliefs about the world. Similarly, the goals of an agent in a multi-agent domain may involve manipulating the knowledge and beliefs of other agents' and, again, not just their knowledge 1 about the world, but also their knowledge about other agents' knowledge about the world. The goal of this paper is to investigate an action language, called mA * , that provides the necessary features to address the above aspects in representing and reasoning about actions and change in multi-agent domains. The language, as designed, can also serve as a specification language for epistemic planning, thereby addressing an important issue in the development of multi-agent epistemic planning systems. The mA * action language is a generalization of the single-agent action languages, extensively studied in the literature, to the case of multi-agent domains. The language allows the representation of different types of actions that an agent can perform in a domain where many other agents might be present-such as world-altering actions, sensing actions, and communication actions. The action language also allows the specification of agents' dynamic awareness of action occurrences-which has implications on what agents' know about the world and other agents' knowledge about the world. These features are embedded in a language that is simple, yet powerful enough to address a large variety of knowledge manipulation scenarios in multi-agent domains. The semantics of mA * relies on the notion of state, which is described by a pointed Kripke model and is used to encode the agents' knowledge and the real state of the world. The semantics is defined by a transition function that maps pairs of actions and states into sets of states. The paper presents a number of properties of the action theories, including properties that guarantee finiteness of the set of initial states and their practical realization in a system. Finally, the paper relates mA * to other relevant formalisms in the area of reasoning about actions in multi-agent domains.

View PDFchevron_right
Declarative Planning and Knowledge Representation in an Action Language
Gerald Pfeifer

IGI Global eBooks, 2011

This chapter introduces planning and knowledge representation in the declarative action language K. Rooted in the area of Knowledge Representation & Reasoning, action languages like K allow to formalize complex planning problems involving non-determinism and incomplete knowledge in a very flexible manner. By giving an overview of existing planning languages and comparing these against our language, we aim on further promoting the applicability and usefulness of high-level action languages in the area of planning. As opposed to previously existing languages for modeling actions and change, K adopts a logic programming view where fluents representing the epistemic state of an agent might be true, false or undefined in each state. We will show that this view of knowledge states can be fruitfully applied to several well-known planning domains from the literature as well as novel planning domains. Remarkably, K often allows to model problems more concisely than previous action languages. All the examples given can be tested in an available implementation, the DLV K planning system.

View PDFchevron_right
Reasoning about Multi-agent Domains Using Action Language $\mathcal{C}$ : A Preliminary Study
Son Tran

Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 2010

This paper investigates the use of action languages, originally developed for representing and reasoning about single-agent domains, in modeling multi-agent domains. We use the action language C and show that minimal extensions are sufficient to capture several multi-agent domains from the literature. The paper also exposes some limitations of action languages in modeling a specific set of features in multi-agent domains.

View PDFchevron_right
A declarative agent programming language based on action theories
Stephan Schiffel

Frontiers of Combining Systems, 2009

We discuss a new concept of agent programs that combines logic programming with reasoning about actions. These agent logic programs are characterized by a clear separation between the specification of the agent's strategic behavior and the underlying theory about the agent's actions and their effects. This makes it a generic, declarative agent programming language, which can be combined with an action representation formalism of one's choice. We present a declarative semantics for agent logic programs along with (two versions of) a sound and complete operational semantics, which combines the standard inference mechanisms for (constraint) logic programs with reasoning about actions.

View PDFchevron_right
Formal Action Semantics for a UML Action Language
Rob Pooley

J Ucs, 2008

The abstract syntax and static semantics of UML, the widely-used generalpurpose graphical modeling language, have been standardized in a four-layer metamodeling framework. However UML's dynamic semantics, such as UML Precise Action Semantics and the behaviors like activities, interactions and state machines, are only standardized in a natural language-English. It is commonly argued that such informal description inevitably involves ambiguities and lacks rigorousness, precluding the early simulation and reasoning about a UML system design. Here we select Action Semantics (AS) as the vehicle to formalize UML. AS is a mature semantics description framework which has advantages of intelligibility, modularity and practicability. In our approach, we formalize UML indirectly by formalizing its textual correspondent-an extended Action Language, which plays a key role as the interface between UML and its action semantics.

View PDFchevron_right
A modular monadic action semantics
Katarína Burdigová

1997

A domain-specific language (DSL) is a framework which is designed to precisely meet the needs of a particular application. Domain-specific languages exist for a variety of reasons. As productivity tools, they are used to make application prototyping and development faster and more robust in the presence of evolving requirements. Furthermore, by bridging the "semantic gap" between an application domain and program code, DSLs increase the opportunity to apply formal methods in proving properties of an application.

View PDFchevron_right
Modular logic programming
Paolo Mancarella

ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems, 1994

Modularity is a key issue in the design of modern programming languages. When designing modular features for declarative languages in general, and for logic programming languages in particular, the challenge lies in avoiding the superimposition of a complex syntactic and semantic structure over the simple structure of the basic language. The modular framework defined here for logic programming consists of a small number of operations over modules which are (meta-) logically defined and semantically justified in terms of the basic logic programming semantics. The operations enjoy a number of algebraic properties, thus yielding an algebra of modules. Despite its simplicity, the suite of operations is shown capable of capturing the core features of modularization: information hiding, import/export relationships, and construction of module hierarchies. A metalevel implementation and a compilation-oriented implementation of the operations are provided and proved sound with respect to the...

View PDFchevron_right

References (69)

  1. Akman, V., Erdoǧan, S. T., Lee, J., Lifschitz, V., and Turner, H. 2004. Repre- senting the zoo world and the traffic world in the language of the Causal Calculator. Artificial Intelligence 153, 1-2 (March), 105-140.
  2. Balai, E., Gelfond, M., and Zhang, Y. 2012. SPARC -Sorted ASP with Consistency Restoring Rules. In Proceedings of Answer Set Programming and Other Computing Paradigms (ASPOCP 2012), M. Fink and Y. Lierler, Eds. Proceedings published online in arXiv at http://arxiv.org/html/1301.2215v1, 19-33.
  3. Balduccini, M. 2004. USA-Smart: Improving the Quality of Plans in Answer Set Plan- ning. In PADL'04, B. Jayaraman, Ed. Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence (LNCS). Springer, Berlin, 135-147.
  4. Balduccini, M. 2007. CR-MODELS: An Inference Engine for CR-Prolog. In Proceedings of LPNMR-07, C. Baral, G. Brewka, and J. S. Schlipf, Eds. Springer, Berlin, 18-30.
  5. Balduccini, M. 2013. ASP with non-Herbrand partial functions: a language and system for practical use. Theory and Practice of Logic Programming 13, 4-5, 547-561.
  6. Balduccini, M. and Gelfond, M. 2003a. Diagnostic Reasoning with A-Prolog. Theory and Practice of Logic Programming 3, 425-461.
  7. Balduccini, M. and Gelfond, M. 2003b. Logic Programs with Consistency-Restoring Rules. In International Symposium on Logical Formalization of Commonsense Reason- ing, P. Doherty, J. McCarthy, and M.-A. Williams, Eds. AAAI 2003 Spring Symposium Series. Palo Alto, CA, 9-18.
  8. Balduccini, M. and Gelfond, M. 2012. Language ASP{f} with Arithmetic Expressions and Consistency-Restoring Rules. In Proceedings of Answer Set Programming and Other Computing Paradigms (ASPOCP 2012), M. Fink and Y. Lierler, Eds. Proceedings published online in arXiv at http://arxiv.org/html/1301.2215v1, 35-49.
  9. Baral, C. 2003. Knowledge Representation, Reasoning, and Declarative Problem Solving. Cambridge University Press.
  10. Baral, C., Dzifcak, J., and Takahashi, H. 2006. Macros, macro calls and use of ensembles in modular answer set programming. In Logic Programming, S. Etalle and M. Truszczyski, Eds. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 4079. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 376-390.
  11. Baral, C. and Gelfond, M. 2000. Reasoning Agents in Dynamic Domains. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Norwell, MA, 257-279.
  12. Baral, C. and Gelfond, M. 2005. Reasoning about Intended Actions. In AAAI-05: Proceedings of the 20th National Conference on Artificial Intelligence. AAAI Press, 689-694.
  13. Bartholomew, M. and Lee, J. 2013. On the stable model semantics for intensional functions. Journal of Theory and Practice of Logic Programming (TPLP) 13, 4-5, 863-876.
  14. Blount, J., Gelfond, M., and Balduccini, M. 2014. Towards a Theory of Intentional Agents. M. Sridharan, F. Yang, S. Ramamoorthy, V. Patoglu, and E. Erdem, Eds. AAAI 2014 Spring Symposium Series. AAAI Press, Palo Alto, CA.
  15. Cabalar, P. 2011. Functional answer set programming. Journal of Theory and Practice of Logic Programming (TPLP) 11, 2-3, 203-233.
  16. Calimeri, F. and Ianni, G. 2006. Template programs for disjunctive logic programming: An operational semantics. AI Communications 19, 3, 193-206.
  17. Campbell, N. A. and Reece, J. B. 2001. Biology, 6th ed. Benjamin Cummings.
  18. Chintabathina, S. 2012. Planning and Scheduling in Hybrid Domains. Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications 241, 59-70.
  19. Chintabathina, S., Gelfond, M., and Watson, R. 2005. Modeling Hybrid Domains Using Process Description Language. In Proceedings of ASP '05 Answer Set Program- ming: Advances in Theory and Implementation. 303-317.
  20. Desai, N. and Singh, M. P. 2007. A modular action description language for proto- col composition. In Proceedings of the Twenty-Second AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, July 22-26, 2007, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. 962-967.
  21. Dovier, A., Formisano, A., and Pontelli, E. 2007. Multivalued action languages with constraints in CLP(FD). Logic Programming: Lecture Notes in Computer Science 4670, 255-270.
  22. Eiter, T., Erdem, E., Fink, M., and Senko, J. 2010. Updating action domain descrip- tions. Artif. Intell. 174, 15 (Oct.), 1172-1221.
  23. Eiter, T., Faber, W., Leone, N., Pfeifer, G., and Polleres, A. 2004. Approach to knowledge-state planning: Semantics and complexity. ACM Transactions on Computa- tional Logic 5, 206-263.
  24. Eiter, T., Ianni, G., Lukasiewicz, T., Schindlauer, R., and Tompits, H. 2008. Com- bining answer set programming with description logics for the semantic web. Artificial Intelligence 172, 12-13 (August), 1495-1539.
  25. Erdoǧan, S. and Lifschitz, V. 2006. Actions as special cases. In Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning: Proceedings of the International Conference, P. Doherty, J. Mylopoulos, and C. A. Welty, Eds. AAAI Press, Palo Alto, CA, 377-387.
  26. Erdoǧan, S. T. 2008. A Library of General-Purpose Action Descriptions. Ph.D. thesis, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX, USA.
  27. Fodor, P. and Kifer, M. 2011. Modeling Hybrid Domains Using Process Description Language. In Proceedings of the 27th International Conference on Logic Programming (ICLP), J. P. Gallagher and M. Gelfond, Eds. Schloss Dagstuhl -Leibniz-Zentrum fuer Informatik, Wadern, 162-174.
  28. Gebser, M., Grote, T., Kaminski, R., and Schaub, T. 2011. Reactive answer set pro- gramming. In LPNMR, J. P. Delgrande and W. Faber, Eds. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 6645. Springer, 54-66.
  29. Gebser, M., Kaminski, R., Kaufmann, B., and Schaub, T. 2012. Answer Set Solving in Practice. Synthesis Lectures on Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning. Morgan and Claypool Publishers.
  30. Gebser, M., Sabuncu, O., and Schaub, T. 2011. An incremental answer set program- ming based system for finite model computation. AI Commun. 24, 2, 195-212.
  31. Gelfond, M. and Inclezan, D. 2009. Yet Another Modular Action Language. In Proceedings of SEA-09. University of Bath Opus: Online Publications Store, 64-78.
  32. Gelfond, M. and Inclezan, D. 2013. Some properties of system descriptions in ALd. Journal of Applied Non-Classical Logics 23, 105-120.
  33. Gelfond, M. and Kahl, Y. 2014. Knowledge Representation, Reasoning, and the Design of Intelligent Agents. Cambridge University Press.
  34. Gelfond, M. and Lifschitz, V. 1988. The Stable Model Semantics for Logic Program- ming. In Proceedings of ICLP-88, R. A. Kowalski and K. A. Bowen, Eds. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1070-1080.
  35. Gelfond, M. and Lifschitz, V. 1991. Classical Negation in Logic Programs and Dis- junctive Databases. New Generation Computing 9, 3/4, 365-386.
  36. Gelfond, M. and Lifschitz, V. 1993. Representing Action and Change by Logic Pro- grams. Journal of Logic Programming 17, 2-4, 301-321.
  37. Gelfond, M. and Lifschitz, V. 1998. Action languages. Electronic Transactions on AI 3, 16, 193-210.
  38. Gelfond, M. and Lifschitz, V. 2012. The Common Core of Action Languages B and C. In Proceedings of the 14th International Workshop on Non-Monotonic Reasoning (NMR'2012).
  39. Giunchiglia, E., Lee, J., Lifschitz, V., McCain, N., and Turner, H. 2004. Non- monotonic Causal Theories. Artificial Intelligence 153, 1-2, 105-140.
  40. Giunchiglia, E. and Lifschitz, V. 1998. An Action Language Based on Causal Ex- planation: Preliminary Report. In Proceedings of National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI). AAAI Press, Palo Alto, CA, 623-630.
  41. Grosof, B., Dean, M., and Kifer, M. 2009. The SILK System: Scalable Higher-Order Defeasible Rules. In International RuleML Symposium on Rule Interchange and Appli- cations.
  42. Gunning, D., Chaudhri, V. K., Clark, P., Barker, K., Chaw, S.-Y., Greaves, M., Grosof, B., Leung, A., McDonald, D., Mishra, S., Pacheco, J., Porter, B., Spaulding, A., Tecuci, D., and Tien, J. 2010. Project Halo-Progress Toward Digital Aristotle. AI Magazine 31, 3, 33-58.
  43. Gustafsson, J. and Kvarnström, J. 2004. Elaboration tolerance through object- orientation. Artificial Intelligence 153, 239-285.
  44. Hanus, M. 1994. The integration of functions into logic programming: From theory to practice. Journal of Logic Programming 19-20, 583-628.
  45. Henschel, A. and Thielscher, M. 1999. The LMW traffic world in the fluent calculus.
  46. Inclezan, D. 2010. Computing Trajectories of Dynamic Systems Using ASP and Flora- 2.
  47. M. T. Gerhard Brewka, Victor Marek, Ed. Paper presented at NonMon@30: Thirty Years of Nonmonotonic Reasoning Conference, Lexington, Kentucky, 22-25 October. Available at http://www.depts.ttu.edu/cs/research/krlab/pdfs/papers/di10.pdf.
  48. Inclezan, D. 2012. Modular Action Language ALM for Dynamic Domain Representation. Ph.D. thesis, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, TX, USA.
  49. Inclezan, D. and Gelfond, M. 2011. Representing Biological Processes in Modular Action Language ALM. In Proceedings of the 2011 AAAI Spring Symposium on For- malizing Commonsense. AAAI Press, 49-55.
  50. Kakas, A. and Miller, R. 1997. A simple declarative language for describing narratives with actions. Journal of Logic Programming 31, 1-3, 157-200.
  51. Leone, N., Pfeifer, G., Faber, W., Eiter, T., Gottlob, G., Perri, S., and Scar- cello, F. 2006. The DLV system for knowledge representation and reasoning. ACM Transactions on Computational Logic 7, 3, 499-562.
  52. Lierler, Y. and Truszczynski, M. 2013. Modular answer set solving. In Proceedings of the 27th AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence(AAAI-13). 68-70.
  53. Lifschitz, V. 2012. Logic programs with intensional functions. In Proceedings of Inter- national Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR), G. Brewka, T. Eiter, and S. A. McIlraith, Eds. AAAI Press, 24-31.
  54. Lifschitz, V. and Ren, W. 2006. A Modular Action Description Language. Proceedings of the Twenty-First National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI). 853-859.
  55. Marek, V. W. and Truszczynski, M. 1999. Stable models and an alternative logic programming paradigm. The Logic Programming Paradigm: a 25-Year Perspective. Springer Verlag, Berlin, 375-398.
  56. McCain, N. and Turner, H. 1997. Causal Theories of Action and Change. In Proceed- ings of AAAI-97. 460-465.
  57. McCarthy, J. 1963. Situations, actions, and causal laws. Tech. Rep. Memo 2, Stanford University.
  58. McCarthy, J. 1968. Programs with common sense. In Semantic Information Processing. MIT Press, 403-418.
  59. McCarthy, J. 1998. Elaboration Tolerance. In Proceedings of Commonsense Reason- ing. Available online at: http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/elaboration/elaboration. html.
  60. Niemelä, I. 1998. Logic Programs with Stable Model Semantics as a Constraint Pro- gramming Paradigm. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence 25, 72-79.
  61. Niemelä, I. and Simons, P. 1997. Smodels -an implementation of the stable model and well-founded semantics for normal logic programs. In Proceedings of the 4th Interna- tional Conference on Logic Programming and Non-Monotonic Reasoning (LPNMR-97), J. Dix, U. Furbach, and A. Nerode, Eds. Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence (LNCS), vol. 1265. Springer, Berlin, 420-429.
  62. Oikarinen, E. and Janhunen, T. 2006. Modular equivalence for normal logic pro- grams. In Proceedings of 17th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence(ECAI), G. Brewka, S. Coradeschi, A. Perini, and P. Traverso, Eds. IOS Press, Amsterdam, 412-416.
  63. Pfenning, F., Ed. 1992. Types in Logic Programming. MIT Press.
  64. Sandewall, E. 1999. Logic modelling workshop: Communicating axiomatizations of actions and change. http://www.ida.liu.se/ext/etai/lmw.
  65. Strass, H. and Thielscher, M. 2012. A language for default reasoning about actions. In Correct Reasoning: Essays in Honor of Vladimir Lifschitz, E. Erdem, J. Lee, Y. Lierler, and D. Pearce, Eds. LNCS, vol. 7265. Springer, 527-542.
  66. Turner, H. 1997. Representing Actions in Logic Programs and Default Theories: A Situation Calculus Approach. Journal of Logic Programming 31, 1-3 (Jun), 245-298.
  67. Turner, H. 1999. A logic of universal causation. Artificial Intelligence 113, 87-123.
  68. Van Gelder, A., Ross, K. A., and Schlipf, J. S. 1991. The Well-Founded Semantics for General Logic Programs. Journal of the ACM 38, 619-649.
  69. Wirth, N. 1971. Program development by stepwise refinement. Commun. ACM 14, 4 (Apr.), 221-227.

Related papers

Yet another modular action language
Daniela Inclezan

The paper presents the syntax and semantics of an action language ALM. The language is used for representation of knowledge about dynamic systems. It extends action language AL by allowing definitions of new objects (actions and fluents) in terms of other, previously defined, objects. This, together with the modular structure of the new language leads to more elegant and concise representations and facilitates creation of libraries of knowledge modules. The methodology of representing knowledge in ALM is illustrated by a number of examples.

View PDFchevron_right
Composing programming languages by combining action-semantics modules
Peter Mosses, K. Doh

Science of Computer Programming, 2003

This article demonstrates a method for composing a programming language by combining action-semantics modules. Each module is defined separately, and then a programming-language module is defined by combining existing modules. This method enables the language designer to gradually develop a language by defining, selecting and combining suitable modules. The resulting modular structure is substantially different from that previously employed in action-semantic descriptions.

View PDFchevron_right
From Action Systems to Modular Systems
Ralph-Johan Back

Software - Concepts and Tools / Structured Programming, 1996

Action systems are used to extend program refinement methods for sequential programs, as described in the refinement calculus, to parallel and reactive system refinement. They provide a general description of reactive systems, capable of modeling terminating, possibly aborting and infinitely repeating systems. We show how to extend the action system model to refinement of modular systems. A module may export and import variables, it may provide access procedures for other modules, and it may itself access procedures of other modules. Modules may have autonomous internal activity and may execute in parallel or in sequence. Modules may be nested within each other. They may communicate by shared variables, shared actions, a generalized form of remote procedure calls and by persistent data structures. Both synchronous and asynchronous communication between modules is supported. The paper shows how a single framework can be used for both the specification of large systems, the modular decomposition of the system into smaller units and the refinement of the modules into program modules that can be described in a standard programming language and executed on standard hardware.

View PDFchevron_right
A Logic programming theory of reasoning about actions
Chitta Baral

1998

Abstract In this paper we propose the language ofstate speci cations' to uniformly specify e ect of actions, executability condition of actions, and dynamic and static constraints. This language allows us to be able to express e ects of action and constraints with same rst order representation but di erent intuitive behavior to be speci ed di erently. We then discuss how we can use state speci cations to extend the action description languages A and L0.

View PDFchevron_right
An Action Semantics for MML
Tony Clark

«UML» 2001—The Unified …, 2001

View PDFchevron_right

Related topics

  • Computer Science
  • Logic Programming
  • Knowledge Representation and Rea...
    • 580 California St., Suite 400
    San Francisco, CA, 94104
    © 2025 Academia. All rights reserved