jason-users Mailing List for jason

Hi David,

I'm not sure I fully understand the problem, but my guess is that it  
could be circumvented in Jason! :D

Responding your specific question: I'm aware of work using constraint  
logic programming in multi-agent systems (see below, and IMPACT did  
too, but it's no longer publicly available), but not within a BDI  
architecture. An example of the use of constraint logic programming  
for agents can be found in this paper and sites:

http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1380572.1380578&coll=portal&dl=ACM
http://www.lia.deis.unibo.it/research/socs_si/socs_si.shtml
http://www-lia.deis.unibo.it/research/climb/tools-SOCS-SI.html

HTH,

Rafael



On 17 Nov 2008, at 12:47, David Pautler wrote:

> [OT: This post is not specific to Jason]
>
> As I've started coding agent plans, I've felt forced to warp the plan
> formalizations so that vars representing start and end times are  
> bound,
> even though it seems too early to commit to specific values.
>
> For example, imagine pseudo-code like this:
>
> cause(do(Agent, followAnimal(Animal, StartTime, EndTime),
>      trackAnimal(Agent, Animal, DurationHrs) )
> :- EndTime is StartTime + Duration.
>
> Imagine that trackAnimal(hunter1, tiger1, 3) is the goal (i.e., "I  
> want to
> track that tiger for at least 3 hours so I know what it's up to"), and
> that the "do" clause's EndTime will gradually become bound through
> back-chaining. Or rather, it *would* become bound through back- 
> chaining,
> if we weren't forced by "is" to make sure all the time vars are bound
> before the "cause" clause can be used in any plan.
>
> While looking for an alternative to "is", I came across the ECLiPSe
> extension of Prolog which supports "constraint sets" as a  
> generalization
> of Prolog's var-to-value binds list. It seems to allow delaying  
> binding
> decisions, as I'm seeking to do:
>
>  http://87.230.22.228/doc/tutorial/tutorial108.html
>
> Does anyone know of BDI work using constraint logic programming? I  
> want to
> learn from others' mistakes before possibly reinventing the wheel.
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's  
> challenge
> Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK & win  
> great prizes
> Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in  
> the world
> http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100&url=/
> _______________________________________________
> Jason-users mailing list
> Jas...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jason-users

[OT: This post is not specific to Jason]

As I've started coding agent plans, I've felt forced to warp the plan
formalizations so that vars representing start and end times are bound,
even though it seems too early to commit to specific values.

For example, imagine pseudo-code like this:

cause(do(Agent, followAnimal(Animal, StartTime, EndTime),
      trackAnimal(Agent, Animal, DurationHrs) )
:- EndTime is StartTime + Duration.

Imagine that trackAnimal(hunter1, tiger1, 3) is the goal (i.e., "I want to
track that tiger for at least 3 hours so I know what it's up to"), and
that the "do" clause's EndTime will gradually become bound through
back-chaining. Or rather, it *would* become bound through back-chaining,
if we weren't forced by "is" to make sure all the time vars are bound
before the "cause" clause can be used in any plan.

While looking for an alternative to "is", I came across the ECLiPSe
extension of Prolog which supports "constraint sets" as a generalization
of Prolog's var-to-value binds list. It seems to allow delaying binding
decisions, as I'm seeking to do:

  http://87.230.22.228/doc/tutorial/tutorial108.html

Does anyone know of BDI work using constraint logic programming? I want to
learn from others' mistakes before possibly reinventing the wheel.