Skip to main content

The PLACA agent programming language

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Intelligent Agents (ATAL 1994)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNAI,volume 890))

Included in the following conference series:

Abstract

The fundamental idea underlying agent-oriented programming (AOP) [14] is that agents are modeled in terms of their “mental states” (consisting in this work of beliefs, plans, capabilities, and intentions), both by other agents and by their designers and programmers. An agent program gives the agent's initial mental state and rules describing a transition function: given an agent's current state and input, the rules specify its new state and output. An agent's communicative acts, then, are actions that affect the mental states of the agents involved, just as physical actions affect the agent's physical environment.

We present and discuss a new agent-oriented programming language, PLACA, a descendant of AGENTIO [14]. Unlike AGENTO, PLACA capitalizes on agents' planning abilities. Assuming that all agents have at least elementary planning abilities, PLACA agents can make high-level requests of each other without worrying about how these requests will be carried out. We describe PLACA, show a short example program, briefly describe a PLACA interpreter, and discuss the mental states of agents.

This material is based in part on work supported under a National Science Foundation Graduate Fellowship. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this paper are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Philip E. Agre and David Chapman. Pengi: An implementation of a theory of activity. In Proceedings of the Sixth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pages 268–272, 1987.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Michael E. Bratman. Intention, Plans, and Practical Reason. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 1987.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Michael E. Bratman, David J. Israel, and Martha E. Pollack. Plans and resourcebounded practical reasoning. Computational Intelligence, 4(4):349–355, November 1988.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Rodney A. Brooks. Intelligence without representation. Artificial Intelligence, 47(1–3):139–59, January 1991.

    Google Scholar 

  5. David Chapman and Philip E. Agre. Abstract reasoning as emergent from concrete activity. In Michael P. Georgeff and Amy L. Lansky, editors, Reasoning About Actions and Plans: Proceedings of the 1986 Workshop, pages 411–424, 1986.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Philip R. Cohen and Hector J. Levesque. Intention is choice with commitment. Artificial Intelligence, 42(3):213–261, 1989.

    Google Scholar 

  7. M. Gelfond, V. Lifschitz, and A. Rabinov. What are the limitations of the situation calculus? In Working Notes: AAAI Spring Symposium Series, Symposium on Logical Formalizations of Commonsense Reasoning, pages 59–69, 1991.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Joseph Y. Halpern and Yoram Moses. A guide to completeness and complexity for modal logics of knowledge and belief. Artificial Intelligence, 54(3):319–379, 1992.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Carl Hewitt. Viewing control structures as patterns of passing messages. Artificial Intelligence, 8:323–364, 1977.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Kurt Konolige and Martha E. Pollack. A representationalist theory of intention. In Proceedings of the International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 1993.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Steven Minton, Craig A. Knoblock, Daniel R. Kuokka, Yolanda Gil, Robert L. Joseph, and Jaime G. Carbonell. Prodigy 2.0: The manual and tutorial. Technical Report CMU-CS-89-146, Carnegie Mellon University, 1989.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Edwin Pednault. Extending conventional planning techniques to handle actions with context-dependent effects. In Proceedings of the National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pages 55–59, 1988.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Anand S. Rao and Michael P. Georgeff. Modeling rational agents within a BDI-architecture. In James Allen, Richard Fikes, and Erik Sandewall, editors, Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning: Proceedings of the Second International Conference, pages 473–484, 1991.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Yoav Shoham. Agent-oriented programming. Artificial Intelligence, 60(1):51–92, March 1993.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Ming Tan and Robert Weihmayer. Integrating agent-oriented programming and planning for cooperative problem solving. In Notes from the AAAI-92 Workshop on Cooperation among Heterogeneous Intelligent Systems, 1992.

    Google Scholar 

  16. S. Rebecca Thomas. PLACA, An Agent Oriented Programming Language. PhD thesis, Stanford University, 1993. Available as Stanford University Computer Science Department Technical Report STAN-CS-93-1487.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Michael J. Wooldridge Nicholas R. Jennings

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 1995 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

Thomas, S.R. (1995). The PLACA agent programming language. In: Wooldridge, M.J., Jennings, N.R. (eds) Intelligent Agents. ATAL 1994. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 890. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-58855-8_23

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-58855-8_23

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-540-58855-9

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-540-49129-3

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics