M. Wooldridge. A knowledge-theoretic semantics for concurrent METATEM. Agent Theories, Architectures, and Languages, LNAI 1193, pp. 357--374, Springer, 1997.  Home/Search   Document Details and Download   Summary   Related Articles   Check

....compensation. The transactions are coordinated through an external coordinator, which tracks the success or failure of the individual services, and reports them to the application. Concurrent METATEM, a executable temporal logic, has been used to specify and build agents and multiagent systems [15]. It enables the specification of the behavior of the various agents, somewhat like reactive systems in traditional logics of programs. This is a major difference from our approach, because we only formalize the coordination requirements in our logic, and leave the internal details to the ....

....to the until and since operators. Concurrent METATEM has a greater range of operators. Wooldridge assumes that the agents execute in lock step synchronization, and that they always choose the right path, which would lead to the stated rules being satisfied (assuming the rules are consistent) [15]. These assumptions are relaxed in our approach. Our agents can execute asynchronously, and must be serialized only when necessary. The present paper does not address the challenge of how the required declarative specifications are created in the first place. To this end, we previously proposed a ....

M. Wooldridge. A knowledge-theoretic semantics for concurrent METATEM. Agent Theories, Architectures, and Languages, LNAI 1193, pp. 357--374, Springer, 1997.

....language, represents one way of decreasing the discrepancy. Alternative approaches to bridge the gap are those that start with a general, well understood and implemented programming language and aim to accommodate it to suit descriptions of multi agent systems. The language Concurrent METATEM [17], the language described in [2] as well as our language of Modular Information passing Agents serve as examples of the latter. The former two of these treatments are based on executable temporal logic and higher order logic, respectively, whereas our framework is underpinned by existing, ....

M. Wooldridge. A knowledge-theoretic semantics for concurrent METATEM. In Proceedings of ECAI'96 Workshop (ATAL), volume 1193 of LNAI, pages 357--374. Springer-Verlag, 1996.

....As agent architectures become more widely used, there is an increasing demand for unambiguous specifications of them and there is a greater need to verify implementations of them. To this end, a range of techniques have been used to formally specify agent architectures (e.g. Concurrent MetateM [9, 33], DESIRE [5, 30] and Z [7] However, these techniques typically fall short in at least one of the following ways: i) they prescribe a particular means of performing the separation of concerns and limit the type of interrelationships that can be expressed between the resulting components; ii) ....

....a module. In contrast, our communication between modules is based on a multicast model. We could, of course, simulate the kind of control found in DESIRE by building a central controlling module, if this were required. Concurrent MetateM defines concurrent semantics at the level of single rules [9, 33]. Thus an agent is basically a set of temporal rules which fire when their antecedents are satisfied. Our approach does not assume concurrency within the components of units, rather the units themselves are the concurrent components of our architectures. This means that our model It is possible ....

M. Wooldridge. A knowledge-theoretic semantics for Concurrent MetateM. In Intelligent Agents III,J.P. Muller, M. J. Wooldridge, and N. R. Jennings, eds, pp. 357--374. Springer Verlag, Berlin, 1996.

....actions that the agent is committed to . When an agent commits itself to an action, the agenda is updated accordingly. How an agent acts at a certain point (possible world) is defined not just by reference to relations on points, but also by the agenda as it stands at those points. ffl Wooldridge [21] characterizes agents by sets of propositions (representing what it knows of the past) and by general rules (its commitments, expressed as axioms of temporal logic, describing what sequences of states and events the agent will try to realize) That has obvious analogies with the operational ....

Michael Wooldridge. A knowledge-theoretic semantics for concurrent MetateM. In J Muller, MJ Wooldridge, and NR Jennings, editors, Intelligent agents III: Agent theories, architectures and languages: ECAI '96 Workshop (ATAL), Lecture Notes in AI 1193, pages 357--374. Springer-Verlag, August 1996. 15

....agent architectures become more widely used, there is an increasing demand for unambiguous specifications of them and there is a greater need to verify implementations of them. To this end, a range of techniques have been used to formally specify agent architectures (including Concurrent MetateM [12, 35], DESIRE [3, 32] and Z [8] However, these techniques typically fall short in at least one of the following ways: i) they enforce a particular view of architecture upon the specification; ii) they offer no explicit structures for modelling the components of an architecture or the relationships ....

....model in DESIRE is based on a one to one connection between tasks, in a similar way to that in which we connect units inside a module. In contrast, our communication between modules is based on a multicast model. Concurrent MetateM defines concurrent semantics at the level of single rules [12, 35]. Thus an agent is basically a set of temporal rules which fire when their antecedents are satisfied. Our approach does not assume concurrency within the components of units, rather the units themselves are the concurrent components of our architectures. This means that our model has an inherent ....

M. Wooldridge. A knowledge-theoretic semantics for Concurrent MetateM. In J. P. Muller, M. J. Wooldridge, and N. R. Jennings, editors, Intelligent Agents III, pages 357--

....As agent architectures become more widely used, demand for unambiguous specifications of architectures increases and there is a greater need to verify implementations of architectures. To this end, a range of techniques have been used to formally specify agent architectures (eg Concurrent MetateM [7, 26], DESIRE [3, 24] and Z [5] However, these techniques typically fall short in at least one of the following ways: i) they enforce a particular view of architecture upon the specification; ii) they offer no explicit structures for 1 modelling the components of an architecture or the ....

....model in DESIRE is based on a one to one connection between tasks, in a similar way to that in which we connect units inside a module. In contrast, our communication between modules is based on a multicast model. Concurrent MetateM defines concurrent semantics at the level of single rules [7, 26]. Thus an agent is basically a set of temporal rules which fire when their antecedents are satisfied. Our approach does not assume concurrency within the components of units, rather the units themselves are the concurrent components of our architectures. This means that our model has an inherent ....

M. Wooldridge. A knowledge-theoretic semantics for Concurrent MetateM. In J. P. Muller, M. J. Wooldridge, and N. R. Jennings, editors, Intelligent Agents III, pages 357--374. Springer Verlag, Berlin, 1996. 19

....them. As agent architectures become more widely used, there is an increasing demand for unambiguous speci cations of them and there is a greater need to verify implementations of them. To this end, a range of techniques have been used to formally specify agent architectures (eg Concurrent MetateM [9, 33], DESIRE [5, 30] and Z [7] However, these techniques typically fall short in at least one of the following ways: i) they prescribe a particular means of performing the separation of concerns and limit the type of inter relationships that can be expressed between the resulting components; ii) ....

....a module. In contrast, our communication between modules is based on a multicast model. We could, of course, simulate the kind of control found in DESIRE by building a central controlling module, if this were required. Concurrent MetateM de nes concurrent semantics at the level of single rules [9, 33]. Thus an agent is basically a set of temporal rules which re when their antecedents are satis ed. Our approach does not assume concurrency within the components of units, rather the units themselves are the concurrent components of our architectures. This means that our model has an inherent ....

M. Wooldridge. A knowledge-theoretic semantics for Concurrent MetateM. In J. P. Muller, M. J. Wooldridge, and N. R. Jennings, editors, Intelligent Agents III, pages 357-374. Springer Verlag, Berlin, 1996.

....them. As agent architectures become more widely used, there is an increasing demand for unambiguous specifications of them and there is a greater need to verify implementations of them. To this end, a range of techniques have been used to formally specify agent architectures (eg Concurrent MetateM [9, 27], DESIRE [3, 25] and Z [6] However, these techniques typically fall short in at least one of the following ways: i) they enforce a particular view of architecture upon the specification; ii) they offer no explicit structures for modelling the components of an architecture or the relationships ....

....model in DESIRE is based on a one to one connection between tasks, in a similar way to that in which we connect units inside a module. In contrast, our communication between modules is based on a multicast model. Concurrent MetateM defines concurrent semantics at the level of single rules [9, 27]. Thus an agent is basically a set of temporal rules which fire when their antecedents are satisfied. Our approach does not assume concurrency within the components of units, rather the units themselves are the concurrent components of our architectures. This means that our model has an inherent ....

M. Wooldridge. A knowledge-theoretic semantics for Concurrent MetateM. In J. P. Muller, M. J. Wooldridge, and N. R. Jennings, editors, Intelligent Agents III, pages 357--

....languages or agent design frameworks, e.g. 4, 19, 20, 22, 24] Some of these languages, however, lack a clear and formally de ned semantics, and therefore it is dicult to formalise the design, speci cation and veri cation of programs. Other types of languages are based directly on 3 logic ([7, 16, 6, 27]) In this paper, we consider the third approach of desinging a programming language for building programs based on the metaphor of intelligent agents. To promote this new style of programming, we think it is important to show at least three things. First of all, we believe it is important to ....

M.J. Wooldridge. A Knowledge-Theoretic Semantics for Concurrent MetateM. In J.P. Muller, M.J. Wooldridge, and N.R. Jennings, editors, Intelligent Agents III (LNAI 1193), pages 357-374. Springer, 1997. 55

....multi agent programming language. 1 Introduction In the research on multi agent systems (cf. 15] there is a growing interest in semantically well understood programming paradigms for interacting agents. Among the proposed languages are for instance the language Concurrent MetateM described in [5,14], which is underpinned by an executable temporal logic, and the language described in [1] based on higher order logic. Our contribution consists of the investigation of multi agent languages that are rooted in traditional concurrent programming paradigms. In a previous report [2] we have developed ....

M. Wooldridge. A Knowledge-Theoretic Semantics for Concurrent MetateM. In Proceedings of ECAI'96 Workshop (ATAL), volume 1193 of LNAI, pages 357--374. Springer-Verlag, 1996.

....language, represents one way of decreasing the discrepancy. Alternative approaches to bridge the gap are those that start with a general, well understood and implemented programming language and aim to accommodate it to suit descriptions of multi agent systems. The language Concurrent METATEM [17], the language described in [2] as well as our language of Modular Information passing Agents serve as examples of the latter. The former two of these treatments are based on executable temporal logic and higher order logic, respectively, whereas our framework is underpinned by existing, ....

M. Wooldridge. A knowledge-theoretic semantics for concurrent METATEM. In Proceedings of ECAI'96 Workshop (ATAL), volume 1193 of LNAI, pages 357--374. Springer-Verlag, 1996.

Online articles have much greater impact   More about CiteSeer.IST   Add search form to your site   Submit documents   Feedback  

CiteSeer.IST - Copyright Penn State and NEC