M. Fisher. Towards a semantics for Concurrent METATEM. In M. Fisher and R. Owens, editors, Executable Modal and Temporal Logics. Springer-Verlag: Heidelberg, Germany, 1995.  Home/Search   Document Details and Download   Summary   Related Articles   Check

....due to combination of modalities with the temporal operators of the CTL. As shown in [20] these problems partially can be avoided and a BDI logic can be treated as a standard logic of concurrency. Modal temporal logic for modeling the behavior of MAS was used first in Concurrent MetateM language [8]. Another approach was developed by Wooldridge [22] Specifically, a formal model of the type of system to reason about was constructed, and then the execution histories traced out by such a system were used as the semantic foundation for a temporal logic, which can then be used to reason about ....

M. Fisher. Towards a semantics for Concurrent METATEM. In M. Fisher and R. Owens, editors, Executable Modal and Temporal Logics. Springer-Verlag: Heidelberg, Germany, 1995.

....and none of actions B 1 ; Bm have been done, then do action A. As we will show in Section 7, ECA rules are a special case of taps. ECA rules have been de ned only for relational databases (Zaniolo, Ceri, Faloutsos, Snodgrass, Subrahmanian, and Zicari 1997, chaps. 2 4) and object bases (Fisher 1995). In contrast, taps are de ned on top of arbitrary pieces of legacy code (not just relational and OO databases) Second, ECA rules have no temporal component. In contrast, taps allow temporal indeterminacy in ECA rules (e.g. If the stock dropped U 1 percent in the last day and U 2 units the day ....

....and its variants cannot express (at least easily) the two examples listed in the introduction. In addition, all the above temporal frameworks described above provide no explicit way of building on top of arbitrary packages something that taps certainly do. Active databases: Active databases (Fisher 1995; U. Dayal and E. Hanson and J. Widom 1995; Gottlob, Moerkotte, and Subrahmanian 1996) use rules of the form If condition C is true in the current database state and actions A 1 ; A n have been done and none of actions B 1 ; Bm have been done, then do action A. This can be ....

Fisher, M. (1995). Towards a semantics for concurrent metatem. In M. Fisher and R. Owens (Eds.), Executable Modal and Temporal Logics. Springer Verlag LNAI Vol. 897.

....and none of actions B 1 ; Bm have been done, then do action A. As we will show in Section 7, ECA rules are a special case of taps. ECA rules have been de ned only for relational databases (Zaniolo, Ceri, Faloutsos, Snodgrass, Subrahmanian, and Zicari 1997, chaps. 2 4) and object bases (Fisher 1995). In contrast, taps are de ned on top of arbitrary pieces of legacy code (not just relational and OO databases) Second, ECA rules have no temporal component. In contrast, taps allow temporal indeterminacy in ECA rules (e.g. If the stock dropped U 1 percent in the last day and U 2 units the day ....

....and its variants cannot express (at least easily) the two examples listed in the introduction. In addition, all the above temporal frameworks described above provide no explicit way of building on top of arbitrary packages something that taps certainly do. Active databases: Active databases (Fisher 1995; U. Dayal and E. Hanson and J. Widom 1995; Gottlob, Moerkotte, and Subrahmanian 1996) use rules of the form If condition C is true in the current database state and actions A 1 ; A n have been done and none of actions B 1 ; Bm have been done, then do action A. This can be ....

Fisher, M. (1995). Towards a semantics for concurrent metatem. In M. Fisher and R. Owens (Eds.), Executable Modal and Temporal Logics. Springer Verlag LNAI Vol. 897.

....these theories can be used to represent and reason about the actual behavior of agents in a detailed way, especially in the context of complex multi agent systems with communicating agents. On the other hand, there are formalisms for representing and reasoning about concurrent processes, e.g. [2, 5]. However, the representations of these formalisms are at a This research received financial support from the Information Technology Research Centre (Ontario, Canada) the Institute for Robotics and Intelligent Systems (Canada) and the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council ....

Michael Fisher. Towards a semantics for Concurrent METATEM. In Michael Fisher and Richard Owens, editors, Executable Modal and Temporal Logics. Springer-Verlag: Heidelberg, Germany, 1995.

....[1] However, for many multi agent programming languages, it is not at all clear what techniques might be used to develop a formal semantics. In brief, the purpose of this paper is to address the problem of giving a formal semantics to a multi agent programming language called Concurrent METATEM [6, 7, 8]. A Concurrent METATEM system contains a set of concurrently executing agents, able to communicate via asynchronous broadcast message passing. Agents in Concurrent METATEM are programmed by giving them a temporal logic specification of the behaviour it is intended they should exhibit. An agent s ....

....programmed by giving them a temporal logic specification of the behaviour it is intended they should exhibit. An agent s specification is directly executed in order to generate its behaviour. Two previous attempts have been made to develop a semantics for Concurrent METATEM. In the first attempt [8], emphasis was placed on the modeling of concurrency, which was achieved by representing agent execution cycles as intervals over the real numbers. In the second attempt [9] a temporal logic of belief was used to axiomatize Concurrent METATEM. That is, a number of axioms were presented which, it ....

[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]

M. Fisher. Towards a semantics for Concurrent METATEM. In M. Fisher and R. Owens, editors, Executable Modal and Temporal Logics (LNAI Volume 897), pages 86--102. Springer-Verlag: Heidelberg, Germany, 1995.

.... fixing on such a model is that it allows us to represent real concurrency with comparative ease [2] The use of the temporal logic of reals for modelling the behaviour of a group of agents was first proposed by Fisher, who used the technique to give a semantics to his Concurrent METATEM language [5]. We now introduce the technical apparatus for dealing with time. An interval over R between x, y R , where x y, is the subset of R that falls between x and y. interval : R R R set interval(x, y) 4 fz (z R ) x z y)g The set of all intervals is ....

M. Fisher. Towards a semantics for Concurrent METATEM. In M. Fisher and R. Owens, editors, Executable Modal and Temporal Logics. Springer-Verlag: Heidelberg, Germany, 1995.

....when we consider the verification of global properties of multi agent systems. Not only is the logic undecidable, but first order temporal logic is incomplete [22] Further, due to the asynchrony of execution, we require a temporal logic based upon a dense model of time, rather than a discrete one [3, 10]. This, together with the possibility of using more powerful augmented logics means that the development of a verification system based upon our approach is likely to require further research into proof methods for temporal logics (particularly links to inductive and semi automatic ....

M. Fisher. Towards a Semantics for Concurrent METATEM. In M. Fisher and R. Owens, editors, Executable Modal and Temporal Logics. Springer-Verlag, 1995.

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