Hostname: page-component-669899f699-swprf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-05-04T03:29:47.806Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

itSIMPLE: towards an integrated design system for real planning applications

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 February 2013

Tiago S. Vaquero ,
José R. Silva ,
Flavio Tonidandel  and
J. Christopher Beck
Tiago S. Vaquero
Affiliation:
Department of Mechatronics, Escola Politécnica, University of São Paulo, Av. Prof. Mello Moraes, 2231, Cidade Universitária, São Paulo 05508-030, Brazil; e-mail: tiago.vaquero@usp.br, reinaldo@usp.br Department of Mechanical & Industrial Engineering, University of Toronto, 5 King's College Rd. Toronto, ON, M5S 3G8, Canada; e-mail: jcb@mie.utoronto.ca
José R. Silva
Affiliation:
Department of Mechatronics, Escola Politécnica, University of São Paulo, Av. Prof. Mello Moraes, 2231, Cidade Universitária, São Paulo 05508-030, Brazil; e-mail: tiago.vaquero@usp.br, reinaldo@usp.br
Flavio Tonidandel
Affiliation:
Department of Computer Science, Centro Universitário da FEI, Av. Humberto de Alencar Castelo Branco, 3972, São Bernardo do Campo, São Paulo 09850-901, Brazil; e-mail: flaviot@fei.edu.br
J. Christopher Beck
Affiliation:
Department of Mechanical & Industrial Engineering, University of Toronto, 5 King's College Rd. Toronto, ON, M5S 3G8, Canada; e-mail: jcb@mie.utoronto.ca
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Since the end of the 1990s, there has been an increasing interest in the application of artificial intelligence (AI) planning techniques to solve real-life problems. In addition to characteristics of academic problems, such as the need to reason about actions, real-life problems require detailed knowledge elicitation, engineering, and management. A systematic design process in which Knowledge and Requirements Engineering tools play a fundamental role is necessary in such applications. One of the main challenges in such design process, and consequently in the study of Knowledge Engineering in AI planning, has been the analysis of requirements and their subsequent transformation into an input-ready model for planners. itSIMPLE is a research project dedicated to the study of a project process to support the design phases of real-life planning models. In this paper, we give an overview of itSIMPLE focusing on the main translation processes among a minimal set of representations: from requirements represented in Unified Modeling Language (UML) to Petri Nets and from UML models to planning domain definition language for problem solving.

Type
Articles
Information
The Knowledge Engineering Review , Volume 28 , Special Issue 2: Knowledge Engineering for Planning and Scheduling , June 2013 , pp. 215 - 230
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2013 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Billington, J., Christensen, S., van Hee, K., Kindler, E., Kummer, O., Petrucci, L., Post, R., Stehno, C., Weber, M. 2003. The Petri Net Markup Language: concepts, technology, and tools. In Proceedings of the 24th International Conference on Application and Theory of Petri Nets, Lecture Notes in Computer Science 2679, 483–505. Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bray, T., Paoli, J., Sperberg-McQueen, C. M., Maler, E., Yergeau, F. 2004. Extensible Markup Language (XML) 1.0 (3rd edn.). Technical report.Google Scholar
Bock, C. 2006. SysML and UML 2 support of activity modeling. In System Engineering, 2(9), 160–186, John Wiley and Sons Ltd.Google Scholar
Edelkamp, S., Hoffmann, J. 2004. PDDL 2.2: The Language for Classical Part of the 4th International Planning Competition Technical report, Fachbereich Informatik and Institut für Informatik.Google Scholar
Edelkamp, S., Mehler, T. 2005. Knowledge acquisition and knowledge engineering in the ModPlan workbench. In Proceedings of the 1st International Competition on Knowledge Engineering for AI Planning, Monterey, California, USA.Google Scholar
Frappier, M., Habrias, H. 2001. Software Specification Methods. Springer-Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gerevini, A., Long, D. 2006. Preferences and soft constraints in PDDL3. In Proceedings of ICAPS workshop on Planning with Preferences and Soft Constraints, Gerevini, A. & Long, D. (eds). AAAI Press, 46–53.Google Scholar
Gough, J. 2004. XPDDL 0.1b: A XML Version of PDDL. Retrieved November 3, 2010, from http://planning.cis.strath.ac.uk/XPDDL/.Google Scholar
Kindler, E., Weber, M. 2001. A universal module concept for Petri Nets. In Proceedings of the 8th Workshops Algorithmen und Werkzeuge für Petrinetze, Gabriel Juhas und Robert Lorenz (Hrsg.) – Katholische Universitat Eichstatt, 7–12.Google Scholar
Ledang, H., Souquieres, J. 2002. Integration of UML and B specification techniques. In Proceedings of APSEC 2002. IEEE Computer Society, Gold Coast, Queensland, Australia, 495.Google Scholar
Lifschitz, V. 1987. On the semantics of strips. In Reasoning About Actions and Plans, Georgeff, M. P. & Lansky, A. L. (eds). Kaufmann, 1–9.Google Scholar
McCluskey, T. L. 2002. Knowledge engineering: issues for the AI Planning Community. In Proceedings of the AIPS-2002 Workshop on Knowledge Engineering Tools and Techniques for AI Planning, Toulouse, France.Google Scholar
McCluskey, T. L., Simpson, R. M. 2004. Knowledge formulation for AI planning. Knowledge Acquisition, Modeling and Management (EKAW), 449–465.Google Scholar
McDermott, J. 1981. Domain knowledge and the design process. In Proceedings of the 18th Design Automation Conference, DAC ’81, Smith II, R.J. (ed.). Nashville, Tennessee, USA. ACM/IEEE, 580–588, IEEE Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Murata, T. 1989. Petri Nets: properties, analysis and applications. Proceedings of the IEEE, 77, 541–580.Google Scholar
Object Management Group (OMG). 2003. UML 2.0 OCL Specification m Version 2.0. Retrieved October 26, 2010, from http://www.uml.org/.Google Scholar
OMG. 2005. OMG Unified Modeling Language Specification, m Version 2.0. Retrieved October 26, 2010, from http://www.uml.org/.Google Scholar
Pawson, R. R., Mathews, R. 2002. Naked Objects. Wiley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reisig, W. 1985. Petri Nets: An Introduction. Springer-Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rozemberg, G., Engelfriet, J. 1998. Elementary Net Systems. In Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 1491, 12–121. Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sette, F. M., Vaquero, T. S., Park, S. W., Silva, J. R. 2008. Are automated planners up to solve real problems? In Proceedings of the 17th World Congress. The International Federation of Automatic Control (IFAC'08), Seoul, Korea, 15817–15824.Google Scholar
Silva, J. R., Miralles, J., Salmon, A. O., del Foyo, P. 2009. Introducing object-orientation in unified Petri Net approach. In Proceedings of the 20th International Congress of Mechanical Engineering, Gramado, Brazil.Google Scholar
Simpson, R. M., Mccluskey, T. L., Zhao, W., Aylett, R. S., Doniat, C. 2001. GIPO: an integrated graphical tool to support knowledge engineering in AI planning. In Proceedings of the 6th European Conference on Planning. Toledo, Spain.Google Scholar
Simpson, R. M. 2007. Structural domain definition using GIPO IV. In Proceedings of the Second International Competition on Knowledge Engineering. Providence, Rhode Island, USA.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sommerville, I., Sawyer, P. 1997. Viewpoints: principles, problems and a practical approach to requirements engineering. Annals of Software Engineering 3(1), 101–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Suh, N. P. 2001. Axiomatic Design: Advances and Applications. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Udo, M., Vaquero, T. S., Silva, J. R., Tonidandel, F. 2008. Lean software development domain. In Proceedings of ICAPS 2008 Scheduling and Planning Application workshop, Sydney, Australia.Google Scholar
Vaquero, T. S., Silva, J. R., Beck, J. C. 2010. Improving planning performance through post-design analysis. In Proceedings of ICAPS 2010 Knowledge Engineering for Planning & Scheduling workshop, Toronto, Canada, 45–52.Google Scholar
Vaquero, T. S., Tonidandel, F., Barros, L. N., Silva, J. R. 2006. On the use of UML.p for modeling a real application as a planning problem. In Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Automated Planning and Scheduling (ICAPS), Long, D., Smith, S., Borrajo, D. & McCluskey, L. (eds). Cumbria, UK, 434–437. AAAI Press.Google Scholar
Vaquero, T. S., Romero, V., Tonidandel, F., Silva, J. R. 2007. itSIMPLE2.0: an integrated tool for designing planning environments. In Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Automated Planning and Scheduling (ICAPS 2007), Boddy, M., Fox, M. & Thiébaux, S. (eds). Providence, Rhode Island, USA, 336–343. AAAI Press.Google Scholar
Vaquero, T. S., Sette, F., Silva, J. R., Beck, J. C. 2009 a. Planning and scheduling of crude oil distribution in a petroleum plant. In Proceedings of ICAPS 2009 Scheduling and Planning Application workshop, Thessaloniki, Greece.Google Scholar
Vaquero, T. S., Silva, J. R., Ferreira, M., Tonidandel, F., Beck, J. C. 2009 b. From requirements and analysis to PDDL in itSIMPLE3.0. In Proceedings of the 3rd ICKEPS, ICAPS 2009, Thessaloniki, Greece, 54–61.Google Scholar