Logic Journal of IGPL

Logic Journal of IGPL Advance Access originally published online on August 10, 2009
Logic Journal of IGPL 2009 17(6):631-696; doi:10.1093/jigpal/jzp026

This Article Abstract Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to My Personal Archive Download to citation manager Request Permissions Google Scholar Articles by Barringer, H. Articles by Rydeheard, D. Social Bookmarking          What's this?

© The Author 2009. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oxfordjournals.org

Modelling evolvable component systems

Part I: A logical framework

Howard Barringer

School of Computer Science, University of Manchester, Oxford Road, Manchester, M13 9PL, UK.
E-mail: howard.barringer{at}manchester.ac.uk

Dov Gabbay

Department of Computer Science, Kings College London, The Strand, London, WC2R 2LS, UK.
E-mail: dov.gabbay{at}kcl.ac.uk

David Rydeheard

School of Computer Science, University of Manchester, Oxford Road, Manchester, M13 9PL, UK.
E-mail: david.rydeheard{at}manchester.ac.uk

We develop a logical modelling approach to describe evolvable computational systems. In this account, evolvable systems are built hierarchically from components where each component may have an associated supervisory process. The supervisor's purpose is to monitor and possibly change its associated component. Evolutionary change may be determined purely internally from observations made by the supervisor or may be in response to external change. Supervisory processes may be present at any level in the component hierarchy allowing us to use evolutionary behaviour as an integral part of system design.

We model such systems in a revision-based first-order logical framework in which supervisors are modelled as theories which are at a logical meta-level to the theories of their components. This enables evolutionary change of the component to be induced by revision-based changes of the supervisor at the meta-level. In this way, the intervention required in evolutionary change is modelled purely logically.

The hierarchical component-based structure is fairly intricate so we present the basic ideas firstly in a simple setting, the well-known blocks world, before introducing tree-based structures to represent component hierarchies. We also introduce some techniques for establishing the behaviour of evolvable systems specified in this logical framework. The ideas and concepts are driven by example throughout. We conclude with a more substantial example, that of a simple model of an evolvable system of automated bank teller machines.

Key Words: Evolvable Systems • Logical Frameworks • Reconfigurable Component Systems • Revision-Based Logic • Minimum Models

Received for publication 26 April 2007.

References

[1]  Balasubramaniam D, Morrison R, Kirby GNC, Mickan K, Warboys BC, Robertson I, Snowdon RA, Greenwood RM, Seet W. A software architecture approach for structuring autonomic systems. In: Proceeding of ICSE 2005 Workshop on the Design and Evolution of Autonomic Application Software (DEAS 2005) (2005) MO, USA: St Louis. ACM Digital Library.

[2]  Barringer H, Gough G, Brough D, Gabbay D, Hodkinson I, Hunter A, Owens R, McBrien P, Reynolds M, Fisher M. Languages, meta-language and metatem, a discussion paper. Journal of the IGPL (1996) 4(2):255–272.[CrossRef]

[3]  Barringer H, Rydeheard D. Modelling evolvable systems: A temporal logic view. In: We Will Show Them! Essays in honour of Dov Gabbay on his 60th Birthday (2005) 1. College Publications. 195–228.

[4]  Cook SA, Liu Yongmei. A complete axiomatization for blocks world. J. Logic and Computation (2003) 13(4).

[5]  Demsky B, Rinard M. Data structure repair using goal-directed reasoning. In: Proceedings of the 2005 International Conference on Software Engineering (2005) Missouri: St. Louis.

[6]  Etherington DW, Mercer RE, Reiter R. On the adequacy of predicate circumscription for closed-world reasoning. Computational Intelligence (1985) 1:11–15.[CrossRef]

[7]  Eurviriyanukul K, Fernandes AAA, Paton NW. A foundation for the replacement of pipelined physical join operators in adaptive query processing. In: Current Trends in Database Technology (EDBT Workshops) (2006) Springer. 589–600.

[8]  Fikes RE, Nilsson NJ. Strips: A new approach to the application of theorem proving to problem solving. Artificial Intelligence (1971) 2(3–4):189–208.[CrossRef][Web of Science]

[9]  Gabbay DM. Fibring Logics (1999) Oxford University Press.

[10]  Geneseret MR, Nilson NJ. Logical Foundations of Artificial Intelligence (1987) Morgan Kaufmann Publishers.

[11]  Georgeoff MP, Lansky AL. Reactive reasoning and planning. (1987) July. WA: Seattle. 677–682. In Proceedings of the Sixth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence.

[12]  Greenwood RM, Robertson I, Warboys BC, Yeomans BS. An evolutionary approach to process system development. In: Proceedings of the International Process Technology Workshop (1999) Villard de Lans (Grenoble).

[13]  Greenwood RM, Warboys BC, Harrison R, Henderson P. An empirical study of the evolution of a software system. (1998) Honolulu: IEEE Computer Society Press. 293–296. In Proceedings of the 13th IEEE Conference on Automated Software Engineering.

[14]  Kephart JO, Chess DM. The vision of autonomic computing. IEEE Computer (2003) 36(1):41–50.

[15]  Koutsoukos XD, Antsaklis PJ, Lemmon MD, Stiver JA. Supervisory control of hybrid systems. In: Proc. of the IEEE, Special Issue on Hybrid Systems (2000) 88:1026–1049.

[16]  Lehman MM, Ramil JF. Software evolution: Background, theory, practice. Information Processing Letters (2003) 88(1–2):33–44.[CrossRef][Web of Science]

[17]  Maes P, Nardi D, eds. Meta-Level Architectures, & Reflection (1988) North-Holland.

[18]  McCarthy J, Hayes PJ. Some philosophical problems from the standpoint of artificial intelligence. In: Machine Intelligence 4—Meltzer B, Michie D, eds. (1969) Edinburgh University Press. 463–502.

[19]  Milner R. Communication and Concurrency (1989) Prentice-Hall.

[20]  Morrison R, Balasubramaniam D, Kirby GNC, Mickan K, Warboys BC, Greenwood RM, Robertson I, Snowdon RA. A framework for supporting dynamic systems co-evolution. Automated Software Eng (2007) 14(3):261–292.[CrossRef]

[21]  Perlis D, Minker J. Completeness results for circumscription. Artificial Intelligence (1986) 28(1):29–42.[CrossRef][Web of Science]

[22]  Rondogiannis P, Wadge WW. Minimum model semantics for logic programs with negation-as-failure. ACM Trans. Comput. Logic (2005) 6(2):441–467.[CrossRef]

[23]  Shepherdson JC. A sound and complete semantics for a version of negation as failure. Theor. Comput. Sci (1989) 65(3):343–371.[CrossRef]

[24]  Winograd T. Understanding Natural Language (1972) New York: Academic Press.

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    What's this?

This Article Abstract Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to My Personal Archive Download to citation manager Request Permissions Google Scholar Articles by Barringer, H. Articles by Rydeheard, D. Social Bookmarking          What's this?