skip to main content
10.1145/2967973.2968594acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesppdpConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

A framework for easing the development of applications embedding answer set programming

Published:05 September 2016Publication History

ABSTRACT

Answer Set Programming (ASP) is a well-established declarative problem solving paradigm which became widely used in AI and recognized as a powerful tool for knowledge representation and reasoning (KRR), especially for its high expressiveness and the ability to deal also with incomplete knowledge.

Recently, thanks to the availability of a number of robust and efficient implementations, ASP has been increasingly employed in a number of different domains, and used for the development of industrial-level and enterprise applications. This made clear the need for proper development tools and interoperability mechanisms for easing interaction and integration with external systems in the widest range of real-world scenarios, including mobile applications and educational contexts.

In this work we present a framework for integrating the KRR capabilities of ASP into generic applications. We show the use of the framework by illustrating proper specializations for some relevant ASP systems over different platforms, including the mobile setting; furthermore, the potential of the framework for educational purposes is illustrated by means of the development of several ASP-based applications.

References

  1. C. Baral. Knowledge Representation, Reasoning and Declarative Problem Solving. Cambridge University Press, 2003. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. G. Brewka, T. Eiter, and M. Truszczynski. Answer set programming at a glance. Commun. ACM, 54(12):92--103, 2011. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. F. Buccafurri, N. Leone, and P. Rullo. Strong and Weak Constraints in Disjunctive Datalog. In J. Dix, U. Furbach, and A. Nerode, editors, Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Logic Programming and Non-Monotonic Reasoning (LPNMR'97), volume 1265 of Lecture Notes in AI (LNAI), pages 2--17, Dagstuhl, Germany, July 1997. Springer Verlag. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. F. Calimeri, W. Faber, M. Gebser, G. Ianni, R. Kaminski, T. Krennwallner, N. Leone, F. Ricca, and T. Schaub. Asp-core-2: Input language format, 2012.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. F. Calimeri, D. Fuscà, S. Germano, S. Perri, and J. Zangari. Embedding ASP in mobile systems: discussion and preliminary implementations. In Proceedings of the Eighth Workshop on Answer Set Programming and Other Computing Paradigms (ASPOCP 2015), workshop of the 31st International Conference on Logic Programming (ICLP 2015), August 2015.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. F. Calimeri, D. Fuscà, S. Germano, S. Perri, and J. Zangari. embASP, since 2015. https://www.mat.unical.it/calimeri/projects/embasp/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. F. Calimeri, M. Gebser, M. Maratea, and F. Ricca. Design and results of the fifth answer set programming competition. Artificial Intelligence, 231:151--181, 2016. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. F. Calimeri and F. Ricca. On the application of the answer set programming system dlv in industry: a report from the field. Book Reviews, 2013(03), 2013.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. T. Eiter, W. Faber, N. Leone, and G. Pfeifer. Declarative problem-solving using the dlv system. In Logic-based artificial intelligence, pages 79--103. Springer, 2000. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. T. Eiter, G. Ianni, and T. Krennwallner. Answer Set Programming: A Primer. In Reasoning Web. Semantic Technologies for Information Systems, 5th International Summer School - Tutorial Lectures, pages 40--110, Brixen-Bressanone, Italy, August-September 2009. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. W. Faber, N. Leone, and G. Pfeifer. Recursive aggregates in disjunctive logic programs: Semantics and complexity. In J. J. Alferes and J. Leite, editors, Proceedings of the 9th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence (JELIA 2004), volume 3229 of Lecture Notes in AI (LNAI), pages 200--212. Springer Verlag, Sept. 2004.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  12. O. Febbraro, G. Grasso, N. Leone, and F. Ricca. JASP: a framework for integrating Answer Set Programming with Java. In Proc. of KR2012. AAAI Press, 2012.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. E. Gamma, R. Helm, R. Johnson, and J. Vlissides. Design patterns: elements of, 1994.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. M. Gebser, R. Kaminski, B. Kaufmann, M. Ostrowski, T. Schaub, and M. Schneider. Potassco: The Potsdam answer set solving collection. AI Communications, 24(2):107--124, 2011. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. M. Gebser, R. Kaminski, B. Kaufmann, and T. Schaub. Clingo = ASP + control: Preliminary report. In M. Leuschel and T. Schrijvers, editors, Technical Communications of the Thirtieth International Conference on Logic Programming (ICLP'14), volume arXiv:1405.3694v1, 2014. Theory and Practice of Logic Programming, Online Supplement.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. M. Gebser, M. Maratea, and F. Ricca. What's hot in the answer set programming competition. In D. Schuurmans and M. P. Wellman, editors, Proceedings of the Thirtieth AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, February 12-17, 2016, Phoenix, Arizona, USA., pages 4327--4329. AAAI Press, 2016.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. M. Gelfond and N. Leone. Logic Programming and Knowledge Representation -- the A-Prolog perspective. Artificial Intelligence, 138(1-2):3--38, 2002. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. M. Gelfond and V. Lifschitz. Classical Negation in Logic Programs and Disjunctive Databases. New Generation Computing, 9:365--385, 1991.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. Google Activity Recognition API. https://developer.android.com/reference/com/google/android/gms/location/ActivityRecognition.html.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. N. Leone, G. Pfeifer, W. Faber, T. Eiter, G. Gottlob, S. Perri, and F. Scarcello. The DLV System for Knowledge Representation and Reasoning. ACM Transactions on Computational Logic, 7(3):499--562, July 2006. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. N. Leone and F. Ricca. Answer set programming: A tour from the basics to advanced development tools and industrial applications. In RR2015, to appear, LNCS, 2015.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  22. V. Lifschitz. Answer Set Planning. In D. D. Schreye, editor, Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Logic Programming (ICLP'99), pages 23--37, Las Cruces, New Mexico, USA, Nov. 1999. The MIT Press. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. V. W. Marek and M. Truszczyński. Stable Models and an Alternative Logic Programming Paradigm. In K. R. Apt, V. W. Marek, M. Truszczyński, and D. S. Warren, editors, The Logic Programming Paradigm--A 25-Year Perspective, pages 375--398. Springer Verlag, 1999.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  24. I. Niemelä. Logic Programming with Stable Model Semantics as Constraint Programming Paradigm. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence, 25(3-4):241--273, 1999. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. Potassco, the Potsdam Answer Set Solving Collection. http://potassco.sourceforge.net/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. T. C. Przymusinski. Stable Semantics for Disjunctive Programs. New Generation Computing, 9:401--424, 1991.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. S. P. Radziszowski. Small Ramsey Numbers. The Electronic Journal of Combinatorics, 1, 1994. Revision 9: July 15, 2002.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. F. Ricca. The DLV Java Wrapper. In M. de Vos and A. Provetti, editors, Proceedings ASP03 - Answer Set Programming: Advances in Theory and Implementation, pages 305--316, Messina, Italy, Sept. 2003. Online at http://CEUR-WS.org/Vol-78/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. M. Thimm. Tweety: A comprehensive collection of java libraries for logical aspects of artificial intelligence and knowledge representation. In KR, 2014.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. J. B. Warmer and A. G. Kleppe. The Object Constraint Language: Precise Modeling With Uml (Addison-Wesley Object Technology Series). Addison-Wesley Professional, Oct. 1998. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. A framework for easing the development of applications embedding answer set programming

            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 Other conferences
              PPDP '16: Proceedings of the 18th International Symposium on Principles and Practice of Declarative Programming
              September 2016
              249 pages
              ISBN:9781450341486
              DOI:10.1145/2967973
              • Conference Chair:
              • James Cheney,
              • Program Chair:
              • Germán Vidal

              Copyright © 2016 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: 5 September 2016

              Permissions

              Request permissions about this article.

              Request Permissions

              Check for updates

              Qualifiers

              • research-article

              Acceptance Rates

              PPDP '16 Paper Acceptance Rate17of37submissions,46%Overall Acceptance Rate230of486submissions,47%

            PDF Format

            View or Download as a PDF file.

            PDF

            eReader

            View online with eReader.

            eReader