skip to main content
10.1145/1160633.1160865acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesaamasConference Proceedingsconference-collections
Article

Prototyping 3APL in the Maude term rewriting language

Published:08 May 2006Publication History

ABSTRACT

This paper presents an implementation of (a simplified version of) the cognitive agent programming language 3APL in the Maude term rewriting language. We argue that Maude is very well suited for prototyping agent programming languages such as 3APL.

References

  1. J. V. Baalen, J. L. Caldwell, and S. Mishra. Specifying and checking fault-tolerant agent-based protocols using Maude. In FAABS '00: Proc. of the First Int. Workshop on Formal Approaches to Agent-Based Systems-Revised Papers, volume 1871 of LNCS, London, UK, 2001. Springer-Verlag.]] Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. R. H. Bordini, M. Dastani, J. Dix, and A. El Fallah Seghrouchni. Multi-Agent Programming: Languages, Platforms and Applications. Springer, Berlin, 2005.]]Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. R. H. Bordini, M. Fisher, C. Pardavila, and M. Wooldridge. Model checking AgentSpeak. In Proc. of AAMAS'03, 2003.]] Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. R. H. Bordini and A. F. Moreira. Proving the asymmetry thesis principles for a BDI agent-oriented programming language. Electronic Notes in Theoretical Computer Science, 70(5), 2002.]]Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. N. Boudiaf, F. Mokhati, M. Badri, and L. Badri. Specifying DIMA multi-agent models using Maude. In Proc. of PRIMA'04, volume 3371 of LNCS. Springer, 2005.]] Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. M. Clavel, F. Durán, S. Eker, P. Lincoln, N. Martí-Oliet, J. Meseguer, and C. Talcott. Maude manual (version 2.1.1). 2005.]]Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. M. Clavel and J. Meseguer. Reflection and strategies in rewriting logic. Electronic Notes in Theoretical Computer Science, 4:125--147, 1996.]]Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. M. Dastani, F. S. de Boer, F. Dignum, and J.-J. Ch. Meyer. Programming agent deliberation - an approach illustrated using the 3APL language. In Proc. of AAMAS'03, 2003.]] Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. M. Dastani, M. B. van Riemsdijk, F. Dignum, and J.-J. Ch. Meyer. A programming language for cognitive agents: goal directed 3APL. In Programming multiagent systems, first int. workshop (ProMAS'03), volume 3067 of LNAI. Springer, Berlin, 2004.]]Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. M. Dastani, M. B. van Riemsdijk, and J.-J. Ch. Meyer. Programming multi-agent systems in 3APL. In R. H. Bordini, M. Dastani, J. Dix, and A. El Fallah Seghrouchni, editors, Multi-Agent Programming: Languages, Platforms and Applications. Springer, Berlin, 2005.]]Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. F. Durán, S. Eker, P. Lincoln, and J. Meseguer. Principles of mobile Maude. In Proc. of the Second Int. Symposium on Agent Systems and Applications and Fourth Int. Symposium on Mobile Agents, volume 1882 of LNCS, 2000. Springer-Verlag.]] Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. S. Eker, J. Meseguer, and A. Sridharanarayanan. The Maude LTL model checker. In F. Gaducci and U. Montanari, editors, Proc. of the 4th Int. Workshop on Rewriting Logic and Its Applications (WRLA 2002), volume 71 of Electronic Notes in Theoretical Computer Science. Elsevier, 2002.]]Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. K. V. Hindriks, F. S. de Boer, W. van der Hoek, and J.-J. Ch. Meyer. Agent programming in 3APL. Int. J. of AAMAS, 2(4):357--401, 1999.]] Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. G. Holzmann. Design and Validation of Computer Protocols. Prentice Hall, New Jersey, 1991.]] Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. G. Holzmann. The model checker SPIN. IEEE Trans. Software Engineering, 23(5):279--295, 1997.]] Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. M. Kulas and C. Beierle. Defining standard Prolog in rewriting logic. In Electronic Notes in Theoretical Computer Science, volume 36. Elsevier Science Publishers, 2000.]]Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. N. Martí-Oliet and J. Meseguer. Rewriting logic as a logical and semantic framework. In J. Meseguer, editor, Electronic Notes in Theoretical Computer Science, volume 4. Elsevier Science Publishers, 2000.]]Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. J. Meseguer. Conditional rewriting logic as a unified model of concurrency. Theoretical Computer Science, 96:73--155, 1992.]] Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. J. Meseguer. Membership algebra as a logical framework for equational specification. In Proc. of the 12th Int. Workshop on Recent Trends in Algebraic Development Techniques, 1997. Springer-Verlag.]] Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. P. C. Ölveczky. Formal modeling and analysis of distributed systems in Maude. Lecture Notes, 2005.]]Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. G. D. Plotkin. A Structural Approach to Operational Semantics. Technical Report DAIMI FN-19, University of Aarhus, 1981.]]Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. A. Pokahr, L. Braubach, and W. Lamersdorf. Jadex: a BDI reasoning engine. In R. H. Bordini, M. Dastani, J. Dix, and A. El Fallah Seghrouchni, editors, Multi-Agent Programming: Languages, Platforms and Applications. Springer, Berlin, 2005.]]Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. M. B. van Riemsdijk, M. Dastani, and J.-J. Ch. Meyer. Semantics of declarative goals in agent programming. In Proc. of AAMAS'05, 2005.]] Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. M. B. van Riemsdijk, J.-J. Ch. Meyer, and F. S. de Boer. Semantics of plan revision in intelligent agents. In C. Rattray, S. Maharaj, and C. Shankland, editors, Theoretical Computer Science, pages 240--257. 2006. Special issue of Algebraic Methodology and Software Technology (AMAST'04).]] Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. M. B. van Riemsdijk, W. van der Hoek, and J.-J. Ch. Meyer. Agent programming in Dribble: from beliefs to goals using plans. In Proc. of AAMAS'03, 2003.]] Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. A. Verdejo and N. Martí-Oliet. Executable structural operational semantics in Maude. Technical report, Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Madrid, 2003.]]Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. M. Wirsing. Algebraic specification. In J. van Leeuwen, editor, Handbook of Theoretical Computer Science, volume B: Formal Models and Semantics. Elsevier, Amsterdam, 1990.]] Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Prototyping 3APL in the Maude term rewriting language

          Recommendations

          Comments

          Login options

          Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

          Sign in
          • Published in

            cover image ACM Conferences
            AAMAS '06: Proceedings of the fifth international joint conference on Autonomous agents and multiagent systems
            May 2006
            1631 pages
            ISBN:1595933034
            DOI:10.1145/1160633

            Copyright © 2006 ACM

            Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

            Publisher

            Association for Computing Machinery

            New York, NY, United States

            Publication History

            • Published: 8 May 2006

            Permissions

            Request permissions about this article.

            Request Permissions

            Check for updates

            Qualifiers

            • Article

            Acceptance Rates

            Overall Acceptance Rate1,155of5,036submissions,23%

          PDF Format

          View or Download as a PDF file.

          PDF

          eReader

          View online with eReader.

          eReader