The KGP Model of Agency for Global Computing: Computational Model and Prototype Implementation

  • A. Bracciali
  • N. Demetriou
  • U. Endriss
  • A. Kakas
  • W. Lu
  • P. Mancarella
  • F. Sadri
  • K. Stathis
  • G. Terreni
  • F. Toni
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 3267)


We present the computational counterpart of the KGP (Knowledge, Goals, Plan) declarative model of agency for Global Computing. In this context, a computational entity is seen as an agent developed using Computational Logic tools and techniques. We model a KGP agent by relying upon a collection of capabilities, which are then used to define a collection of transitions, to be used within logically specified, context sensitive control theories, which we call cycle theories. In close relationship to the declarative model, the computational model mirrors the logical architecture by specifying appropriate computational counterparts for the capabilities and using these to give the computational models of the transitions. These computational models and the one specified for the cycle theories are all based on, and are significant extensions of, existing proof procedures for abductive logic programming and logic programming with priorities. We also discuss a prototype implementation of the overall computational model for KGP.


Logic Program Logic Programming Integrity Constraint Inductive Logic Programming Argumentation Framework 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Gorgias User Guide (2003),
  2. 2.
    Alberti, M., Bracciali, A., Chesani, F., Endriss, U., Gavanelli, M., Lu, W., Stathis, K., Torroni, P.: SOCS prototype. Technical report, SOCS Consortium (2003), Deliverable D9Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bell, J.: A Planning Theory of Practical Rationality. In: Proceedings of AAAI 1995 Fall Symposium on Rational Agency, pp. 1–4. AAAI Press, Menlo Park (1995)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bondarenko, A., Dung, P.M., Kowalski, R.A., Toni, F.: An abstract, argumentation-theoretic approach to default reasoning. Artificial Intelligence 93, 63–101 (1997)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bracciali, A., Demetriou, N., Endriss, U., Gavanelli, M., Kakas, A.C., Lamma, E., Mancarella, P., Mello, P., Moraitis, P., Sadri, F., Stathis, K., Terreni, G., Toni, F., Torroni, P.: Computational model for computees and societies of computees. Technical report, SOCS Consortium (2003), Deliverable D8Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bracciali, A., Kakas, A.: Frame consistency: Reasoning with explanations. In: Proceedings of the 10th International Workshop on “Non-Monotonic Reasoning” (NMR 2004), Whistler BC, Canada (2004)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Chesani, F., Alberti, M., Gavanelli, M., Lamma, E., Mello, P., Torroni, P.: The SOCS computational logic approach to the specification and verification of agent societies. In: Priami, C., Quaglia, P. (eds.) GC 2004. LNCS, vol. 3267, pp. 314–339. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Clark, K.L.: Negation as Failure. In: Gallaire, H., Minker, J. (eds.) Logic and Data Bases, pp. 293–322. Plenum Press, New York (1978)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Dimopoulos, Y., Kakas, A.C.: Logic programming without negation as failure. In: Logic Programming, Proceedings of the 1995 International Symposium, Portland, Oregon, pp. 369–384 (1995)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Dung, P.M.: On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games. Artificial Intelligence 77, 321–357 (1995)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Endriss, U., Mancarella, P., Sadri, F., Terreni, G., Toni, F.: The CIFF proof procedure for abductive logic programming with constraints. In: Alferes, J.J., Leite, J. (eds.) JELIA 2004. LNCS, vol. 3229, pp. 31–43. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Endriss, U., Mancarella, P., Sadri, F., Terreni, G., Toni, F.: Abductive logic programming with CIFF: implementation and applications. In: Proceedings CILC 2004, Convegno Italiano di Logica Computazionale (2004)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Fung, T.H., Kowalski, R.A.: The IFF proof procedure for abductive logic programming. Journal of Logic Programming 33(2), 151–165 (1997)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Haugeneder, H., Steiner, D., McCabe, F.: IMAGINE: A framework for building multi-agent systems. In: Deen, S.M. (ed.) Proceedings of the 1994 International Working Conference on Cooperating Knowledge Based Systems (CKBS 1994), DAKE Centre, University of Keele, UK, pp. 31–64 (1994)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Huang, Z., Eliens, A., de Bra, P.: An Architecture for Web Agents. In: Proceedings of EUROMEDIA 2001, SCS (2001)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Jaffar, J., Maher, M.: Constraint logic programming: a survey. Journal of Logic Programming 19-20, 503–582 (1994)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kakas, A., Mancarella, P., Sadri, F., Stathis, K., Toni, F.: A logic-based approach to model computees. Technical report, SOCS Consortium (2003), Deliverable D4Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kakas, A., Mancarella, P., Sadri, F., Stathis, K., Toni, F.: The KGP model of agency. In: Proceedings ECAI 2004 (to appear, 2004)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kakas, A.C., Kowalski, R.A., Toni, F.: The role of abduction in logic programming. In: Gabbay, D.M., Hogger, C.J., Robinson, J.A. (eds.) Handbook of Logic in Artificial Intelligence and Logic Programming, vol. 5, pp. 235–324. Oxford University Press, Oxford (1998)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kakas, A.C., Mancarella, P., Dung, P.M.: The acceptability semantics for logic programs. In: Proceedings of the Eleventh International Conference on Logic Programming, Santa Marherita Ligure, Italy, pp. 504–519 (1994)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kakas, A.C., Miller, R.: A simple declarative language for describing narratives with ations. Logic Programming 31 (1997)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Kakas, A.C., Moraitis, P.: Argumentation based decision making for autonomous agents. In: Rosenschein, J.S., Sandholm, T., Wooldridge, M., Yokoo, M. (eds.) Proceedings of the Second International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (AAMAS 2003), Melbourne, Victoria, pp. 883–890. ACM Press, New York (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Kakas, A.C., Toni, F.: Computing argumentation in logic programming. Journal of Logic and Computation 9, 515–562 (1999)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Kakas, A.C., van Nuffelen, B., Denecker, M.: A-System: Problem solving through abduction. In: Nebel, B. (ed.) Proceedings of the 17th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Seattle, Washington, USA, August 2001, pp. 591–596. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, San Francisco (2001)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Kowalski, R.A., Toni, F.: Abstract argumentation. Artificial Intelligence and Law Journal, Special Issue on Logical Models of Argumentation 4(3-4), 275–296 (1996)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Kowalski, R.A.: Logic for Problem Solving. North-Holland, Amsterdam (1979)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Kowalski, R.A.: Problems and promises of computational logic. In: Proceedings of the Symposium on Computational Logic, pp. 1–36. Springer, Heidelberg (1990)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Kowalski, R.A., Sergot, M.: A logic-based calculus of events. New Generation Computing 4(1), 67–95 (1986)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Lloyd, J.W.: Foundations of Logic Programming, 2nd extended edn. Springer, Heidelberg (1987)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Prakken, H., Sartor, G.: A System for Defeasible Argumentation, with Defeasible Priorities, pp. 510–524 (1996)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Prakken, H., Sartor, G.: Argument-based extended logic programming with defeasible priorities. Journal of Applied Non-Classical Logics 7(1) (1997)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Shanahan, M.P.: Prediction is deduction but explanation is abduction. In: Proceedings of the 11th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 1055–1060 (1989)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Shanahan, M.: Solving the Frame Problem. MIT Press, Cambridge (1997)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    SICStus Prolog user manual, release 3.8.4, Swedish Institute of Computer Science (2000)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Stathis, K., Child, C., Lu, W., Lekeas, G.K.: Agents and Environments. Technical report, SOCS Consortium, IST32530/CITY/005/DN/I/a1 (2002)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Stathis, K., Kakas, A., Lu, W., Demetriou, N., Endriss, U., Bracciali, A.: PROSOCS: a platform for programming software agents in computational logic. In: Müller, J., Petta, P. (eds.) Proceedings of From Agent Theory to Agent Implementation (AT2AI-4 – EMCSR 2004 Session M), Vienna, Austria, pp. 523–528 (2004)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Steiner, D.E., Haugeneder, H., Mahling, D.: Collaboration of knowledge bases via knowledge based collaboration. In: Deen, S.M. (ed.) CKBS 1990 — Proceedings of the International Working Conference on Cooperating Knowledge Based Systems, pp. 113–133. Springer, Heidelberg (1991)Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Toni, F., Stathis, K.: Access-as-you-need: a computational logic framework for flexible resource access in artificial societies. In: Petta, P., Tolksdorf, R., Zambonelli, F. (eds.) ESAW 2002. LNCS, vol. 2577, pp. 126–140. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Traversat, B., Abdelaziz, M., Doolin, D., Duigou, M., Hugly, J.C., Pouyoul, E.: Project JXTA-C: Enabling a web of things. In: Proceedings of the 36th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS 2003), pp. 282–287. IEEE Press, Los Alamitos (2003)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • A. Bracciali
    • 1
  • N. Demetriou
    • 2
  • U. Endriss
    • 3
  • A. Kakas
    • 2
  • W. Lu
    • 4
  • P. Mancarella
    • 1
  • F. Sadri
    • 3
  • K. Stathis
    • 1
    • 4
  • G. Terreni
    • 1
  • F. Toni
    • 1
    • 3
  1. 1.Dip. di InformaticaUniversità di PisaItaly
  2. 2.Dept of Computer ScienceCyprus UniversityCyprus
  3. 3.Dept of ComputingImperial College LondonUK
  4. 4.School of InformaticsCity University LondonUK

Personalised recommendations