Advertisement

Programming Goal-Driven Web Sites Using an Agent Logic Language

  • Matteo Baldoni
  • Cristina Baroglio
  • Alessandro Chiarotto
  • Viviana Patti
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1990)

Abstract

In this paper we show how an agent programming language, based on a formal theory of actions, can be employed to implement adaptive web applications, where a personalized dynamical site generation is guided by the user’s needs. For this purpose, we have developed an on-line computer seller in DyLOG, a modal logic programming language which allows one to specify agents acting, interacting, and planning in dynamic environments. Adaptation at the navigation level is realized by dynamically building a presentation plan for solving the problem to assemble a computer, being driven by goals generated by interacting with the user. The planning capabilities of DyLOG are exploited to implement the automated generation of a presentation plan to achieve the goals. The DyLOG agent is the “reasoning” component of a larger system, called WLog, which is described in this paper.

Keywords

Complex Action Dynamic Logic Primitive Action Agent Logic Proof Procedure 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. [1]
    L. Ardissono and A. Goy. Tailoring the interaction with users in electronic shops. In Proc. of the 7th International Conference on User Modeling, 1999.Google Scholar
  2. [2]
    L. Ardissono, A. Goy, R. Meo, G. Petrone, L. Console, L. Lesmo, C. Simone, and P. Torasso. A configurable system for the construction of virtual stores. World Wide Web, 2(3):143–159, 1999.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. [3]
    M. Baldoni, L. Giordano, and A. Martelli. A tableau calculus for multimodal logics and some (un)decidability results. In H. de Swart, editor, Proc. TABLEAUX’98, volume 1397 of LNAI, pages 44–59, 1998.Google Scholar
  4. [4]
    M. Baldoni, L. Giordano, A. Martelli, and V. Patti. An Abductive Proof Procedure for Reasoning about Actions in Modal Logic Programming. In J. Dix, L. M. Pereira, and T. C. Przymusinski, editors, Proc. of NMELP’96, volume 1216 of LNAI, pages 132–150. Springer-Verlag, 1997.Google Scholar
  5. [5]
    M. Baldoni, L. Giordano, A. Martelli, and V. Patti. A modal programming language for representing complex actions. In L. Giordano A. Bonner, B. Freitag, editor, Proc. of the Post-Conference Workshop on Transactions and Change in Logic Databases, DYNAMICS’98, pages 1–15, 1998.Google Scholar
  6. [6]
    M. Baldoni, L. Giordano, A. Martelli, and V. Patti. Modeling agents in a logic action language. In Proc. of the Workshop on Rational Agents, FAPR’00, London, September 2000. To appear.Google Scholar
  7. [7]
    M. Baldoni, L. Giordano, A. Martelli, and V. Patti. Reasoning about complex actions with incomplete knowledge: a modal approach. Technical Report 53/00, Dipartimento di Informatica, University of Torino, 2000.Google Scholar
  8. [8]
    P. Bretier and D. Sadek. A rational agent as the kernel of a cooperative spoken dialogue system: implementing a logical theory of interaction. In Proc. of ATAL III, LNAI, 1997.Google Scholar
  9. [9]
    B. De Carolis, F. de Rosis, D. Berry, and I. Michas. Evaluating plan-based hypermedia generation. In Proc. of European Workshop on Natural Language Generation, Toulouse, 1999.Google Scholar
  10. [10]
    B. N. De Carolis. Introducing reactivity in adaptive hypertext generation. In Proc. 13th Conf. ECAI’98, Brighton, UK, 1998.Google Scholar
  11. [11]
    M. Castilho, O. Gasquet, and A. Herzig. Modal tableaux for reasoning about actions and plans. In S. Steel, editor, Proc. of European Conference on Planning (ECP’97), LNAI, pages 119–130. Springer-Verlag, 1997.Google Scholar
  12. [12]
    G. De Giacomo and M. Lenzerini. PDL-based framework for reasoning about actions. In Topics of Artificial Intelligence, AI*IA’ 95, volume 992 of LNAI, pages 103–114. Springer-Verlag, 1995.Google Scholar
  13. [13]
    M. d’Inverno, D. Kinny, M. Luck, and M. Wooldridge. A formal specification of dmars. In Proc. ATAL’97, volume 1365 of LNAI, pages 155–176, 1997.Google Scholar
  14. [14]
    L. Giordano, A. Martelli, and C. Schwind. Dealing with concurrent actions in modal action logic. In Proc. of ECAI’98, pages 537–541, 1998.Google Scholar
  15. [15]
    L. Giordano, A. Martelli, and C. Schwind. Ramification and causality in a modal action logic. Journal of Logic and Computation, 2000. to appear.Google Scholar
  16. [16]
    H. J. Levesque, R. Reiter, Y. Lespérance, F. Lin, and R. B. Scherl. GOLOG: A Logic Programming Language for Dynamic Domains. Journal of Logic Programming, (31), 1997.Google Scholar
  17. [17]
    D. Magro and P. Torasso. Description and configuration of complex technical products in a virtual store. In Proc. of ECAI2000, Workshop on Configuration, Berlin, 2000.Google Scholar
  18. [18]
    M. McTear. User modelling for adaptive computer systems: a survey on recent developments. Artificial Intelligence Review, 7:157–184, 1993.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. [19]
    H. Prendinger and G. Schurz. Reasoning about action and change. a dynamic logic approach. Journal of Logic, Language, and Information, 5(2):209–245, 1996.zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  20. [20]
    W. Wahlster and A. Kobsa. User models in dialog systems. Springer-Verlag, 1989.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • Matteo Baldoni
    • 1
  • Cristina Baroglio
    • 1
  • Alessandro Chiarotto
    • 1
  • Viviana Patti
    • 1
  1. 1.Dipartimento di InformaticaUniversità degli Studi di TorinoTorinoItaly

Personalised recommendations