2012
DOI: 10.1007/978-3-642-29113-5_13
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A Retrospective on the Reactive Event Calculus and Commitment Modeling Language

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1

Citation Types

0
4
0

Year Published

2012
2012
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
2
2
1

Relationship

2
3

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 5 publications
(4 citation statements)
references
References 20 publications
0
4
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Reactive Event Calculus (REC) stems from SCIFF [57,58,59] and exploits the idea that, every time a new event (or set of events) is delivered to an agent, it must react by extending the narrative and by consequently extending and revising previously computed results. REC axiomatization can be based on Abductive Logic Programming (ALP), or alternatively on a lightweight form of Cached Event Calculus (CEC) [60], that exploits assert and retract predicates to cache and revise the maximal validity intervals of fluents.…”
Section: Related Workmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Reactive Event Calculus (REC) stems from SCIFF [57,58,59] and exploits the idea that, every time a new event (or set of events) is delivered to an agent, it must react by extending the narrative and by consequently extending and revising previously computed results. REC axiomatization can be based on Abductive Logic Programming (ALP), or alternatively on a lightweight form of Cached Event Calculus (CEC) [60], that exploits assert and retract predicates to cache and revise the maximal validity intervals of fluents.…”
Section: Related Workmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Finally, in [16], we used the results discussed in [17] to enhance agent-based simulation, but with no support for conditional commitment. A retrospective on our research done on the REC in relation with social commitments can be found in [63]. Here we present a comprehensive axiomatization of the commitments, where significant extensions (some of them proposed in previous works, while other newly introduced in this paper) have been taken into account, and supported within the framework.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 98%
“…Literature about commitment-based protocols static and run-time verification is so wide as to make it impossible to mention all relevant work here. About run-time verification we mention [9,10,11], about static (a priori) verification we mention (among many) [12,13,14,15]. In [5], a semantics is proposed for the most common FIPA primitives [16] in terms of commitments.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%