Content languages

1
Content languages

• EEL 5937 Multi Agent Systems
• Lotzi Bölöni

2
Place of content language in the communication

• The agent communication languages (ACL) are
  expressing
• The performative of the speech act
• The source and destination of the message
• Still need to do
• The language in which the content of the message
  is written
• The ontology (or ontologies), to which the
  content refers
• These are NOT trivial things!

3
Content languages in FIPA-ACL

• The content language is indicated by the
  language parameter in the message.
• A couple of content languages are endorsed by
  FIPA.
• SL (FIPA Semantic Language)
• CCL - Constraint Choice Language
• A language based on the representation of choice
  problems as constraint satisfaction problems.
• KIF - Knowledge Interface Format
• Introduced for backward compatibility from KQML
• RDF - extensions to the RDF framework to
  represent Objects, Propositions and Actions
• You can invent your own
• But dont expect FIPA to love you.
• Still, if interoperability is not a goal, one can
  stop at the level of abstraction of the ACL.

4
FIPA ACL, Semantic Language, SL

• The preferred content language in FIPA ACL
• Quantified, multi-modal logic with operators for
  beliefs, desires, uncertain beliefs and
  intentions
• Can represent propositions, objects and actions
• LISP like notation.
• For a complete description, see
• http//www.fipa.org/specs/fipa00008/SC00008I.html

5
Content expressions

• These are the top level expressions in SL, which
  can be included in the content field of the ACL
  messages.
• A proposition, which may be assigned a truth
  value in a given context. Precisely, it is a
  well-formed formula (Wff) using the rules
  described in the Wff production. A proposition is
  used in the inform communicative act (CA) and
  other CAs derived from it.
• An action, which can be performed. An action may
  be a single action or a composite action built
  using the sequencing and alternative operators.
  An action is used as a content expression when
  the act is request and other CAs derived from it.
• An identifying reference expression (IRE), which
  identifies an object in the domain. This is the
  Referential operator and is used in the
  inform-ref macro act and other CAs derived from
  it.

6
Well formed formulas in SL

• (not ltWffgt)
• Negation. The truth value of this expression is
  false if Wff is true. Otherwise it is true.
• (and ltWff0gt ltWff1gt)
• Conjunction. This expression is true iff2
  well-formed formulae Wff0 and Wff1 are both true,
  otherwise it is false.
• (or ltWff0gt ltWff1gt)
• Disjunction. This expression is false iff
  well-formed formulae Wff0 and Wff1 are both
  false, otherwise it is true.
• (implies ltWff0gt ltWff1gt)
• Implication. This expression is true if either
  Wff0 is false or alternatively if Wff0 is true
  and Wff1 is true. Otherwise it is false. The
  expression corresponds to the standard material
  implication connective Wff0 Þ Wff1.
• (equiv ltWff0gt ltWff1gt)
• Equivalence. This expression is true if either
  Wff0 is true and Wff1 is true, or alternatively
  if Wff0 is false and Wff1 is false. Otherwise it
  is false.

7
Well formed expressions in SL (contd)

• (forall ltvariablegt ltWffgt)
• Universal quantification. The quantified
  expression is true if Wff is true for every value
  of value of the quantified variable.
• (exists ltvariablegt ltWffgt)
• Existential quantification. The quantified
  expression is true if there is at least one value
  for the variable for which Wff is true.
• (B ltagentgt ltexpressiongt)
• Belief. It is true that agent believes that
  expression is true.
• (U ltagentgt ltexpressiongt)
• Uncertainty. It is true that agent is uncertain
  of the truth of expression. Agent neither
  believes expression nor its negation, but
  believes that expression is more likely to be
  true than its negation.
• (I ltagentgt ltexpressiongt)
• Intention. It is true that agent intends that
  expression becomes true and will plan to bring it
  about.
• (PG ltagentgt ltexpressiongt)
• Persistent goal. It is true that agent holds a
  persistent goal that expression becomes true, but
  will not necessarily plan to bring it about.

8
Well formed expressions in SL (contd)

• (feasible ltActionExpressiongt ltWffgt)
• It is true that ActionExpression (or,
  equivalently, some event) can take place and just
  afterwards Wff will be true.
• (feasible ltActionExpressiongt)
• Same as (feasible ltActionExpressiongt true).
• (done ltActionExpressiongt ltWffgt)
• It is true that ActionExpression (or,
  equivalently, some event) has just taken place
  and just before that Wff was true.
• (done ltActionExpressiongt)
• Same as (done ltActionExpressiongt true).

9
Referential operators in SL

• (iota lttermgt ltformulagt)
• The iota operator introduces a scope for the
  given expression (which denotes a term), in which
  the given identifier, which would otherwise be
  free, is defined. An expression containing a free
  variable is not a well-formed FIPA SL expression.
  The expression (iota x (P x)) may be read as the
  x such that P is true of x. The iota operator
  is a constructor for terms which denote objects
  in the domain of discourse.
• (any lttermgt ltformulagt)
• The any operator is used to denote any object
  that satisfies the proposition represented by
  formula.
• (all lttermgt ltformulagt)
• The all operator is used to denote the set of all
  objects that satisfy the proposition represented
  by formula.

10
Examples

• Suppose agent A has the following knowledge base
  KBP(A), Q(1, A), Q(1, B). This example shows a
  successful interaction between agent A and B that
  make use of the all operator.
• (query-ref
• sender (agent-identifier name B)
• receiver (set (agent-identifier name A))
• content "((all (sequence ?x ?y) (q ?x ?y)))"
• language fipa-sl
• reply-with query1)
• (inform
• sender (agent-identifier name A)
• receiver (set (agent-identifier name B))
• content "(( (all (sequence ?x ?y) (q ?x ?y))
  (set(sequence 1 a)(sequence 1 b))))"
• language fipa-sl
• in-reply-to query1)

11
Reduced expressivity subsets.

• The FIPA SL definition given above is a very
  expressive language, but it has an implementation
  cost to the agent and introduces problems of the
  decidability of modal logic.
• To allow simpler agents, or agents performing
  simple tasks, FIPA introduced semantic and
  syntactic subsets of the full FIPA SL

12
Reduced expressivity subsets of SL

• FIPA SL0
• It allows the representation of actions, the
  determination of the result a term representing a
  computation, the completion of an action and
  simple binary propositions.
• FIPA SL1
• extends the minimal representational form of FIPA
  SL0 by adding Boolean connectives to represent
  propositional expressions
• FIPA SL2
• Profile 2 of FIPA SL allows first order predicate
  and modal logic, but is restricted to ensure that
  it must be decidable. Well-known effective
  algorithms exist that can derive whether or not
  an FIPA SL2 Wff is a logical consequence of a set
  of Wffs (for instance KSAT and Monadic).

13
Implementation concerns

• Should you use SL for your project?
• JADE
• Supports parsing of SL messages (jade.content.sl)
• Has classes defining the different vocabularies.
• Has interfaces for the structure of the SL
  expression.
• So the syntax is not a problem
• Semantics is you still need to do the
  understanding yourself
• The JADE developers are working on it.
• Bond
• We are also working on it. ?
• Conclusion
• The use of the SL syntax (e.g. SL0) is preferable
  for the class projects.
• It is not a requirement.