Narrativity in Action: Language, Culture and Text

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Magdalena Grabowska ◽  
Grzegorz Grzegorczyk ◽  
Piotr Kallas
Keyword(s):  
Action Language

Between the Social and the Political

2018 ◽  
Vol 5 (2) ◽  
pp. 90-98
Author(s):  
Pia Rowe ◽  
David Marsh
Keyword(s):  
Political Participation ◽  
Political Science ◽  
Political Action ◽  
The Political ◽  
Conventional Theory ◽  
Important Relationship ◽  
The Social ◽  
Action Language

While Wood and Flinders’ work to broaden the scope of what counts as “politics” in political science is a needed adjustment to conventional theory, it skirts an important relationship between society, the protopolitical sphere, and arena politics. We contend, in particular, that the language of everyday people articulates tensions in society, that such tensions are particularly observable online, and that this language can constitute the beginning of political action. Language can be protopolitical and should, therefore, be included in the authors’ revised theory of what counts as political participation.

From research to action: Language policy in Jamaica

Prospects ◽  
1981 ◽  
Vol 11 (3) ◽  
pp. 372-380 ◽  
Author(s):  
Errol L. Miller
Keyword(s):  
Language Policy ◽  
Action Language

CoreALMlib: An library translated from the Component Library

2016 ◽  
Vol 16 (5-6) ◽  
pp. 800-816 ◽  
Author(s):  
DANIELA INCLEZAN
Keyword(s):  
Natural Language ◽  
Answer Set Programming ◽  
Natural Language Understanding ◽  
Inference Engine ◽  
Lexical Resources ◽  
Language Understanding ◽  
Commonsense Knowledge ◽  
Component Library ◽  
Action Language ◽  
Answer Set

AbstractThis paper presents CoreALMlib, an $\mathscr{ALM}$ library of commonsense knowledge about dynamic domains. The library was obtained by translating part of the Component Library (CLib) into the modular action language $\mathscr{ALM}$. CLib consists of general reusable and composable commonsense concepts, selected based on a thorough study of ontological and lexical resources. Our translation targets CLibstates (i.e., fluents) and actions. The resulting $\mathscr{ALM}$ library contains the descriptions of 123 action classes grouped into 43 reusable modules that are organized into a hierarchy. It is made available online and of interest to researchers in the action language, answer-set programming, and natural language understanding communities. We believe that our translation has two main advantages over its CLib counterpart: (i) it specifies axioms about actions in a more elaboration tolerant and readable way, and (ii) it can be seamlessly integrated with ASP reasoning algorithms (e.g., for planning and postdiction). In contrast, axioms are described in CLib using STRIPS-like operators, and CLib's inference engine cannot handle planning nor postdiction.

scholarly journals Modular action language

2015 ◽  
Vol 16 (2) ◽  
pp. 189-235 ◽  
Author(s):  
DANIELA INCLEZAN ◽  
MICHAEL GELFOND
Keyword(s):  
Logic Programming ◽  
Medium Size ◽  
Programming System ◽  
Problem Structuring ◽  
System Description ◽  
Action Languages ◽  
Special Cases ◽  
Action Language ◽  
Stepwise Development ◽  
High Level

AbstractThe paper introduces a new modular action language,${\mathcal ALM}$, and illustrates the methodology of its use. It is based on the approach of Gelfond and Lifschitz (1993,Journal of Logic Programming 17, 2–4, 301–321; 1998,Electronic Transactions on AI 3, 16, 193–210) in which a high-level action language is used as a front end for a logic programming system description. The resulting logic programming representation is used to perform various computational tasks. The methodology based on existing action languages works well for small and even medium size systems, but is not meant to deal with larger systems that requirestructuring of knowledge.$\mathcal{ALM}$is meant to remedy this problem. Structuring of knowledge in${\mathcal ALM}$is supported by the concepts ofmodule(a formal description of a specific piece of knowledge packaged as a unit),module hierarchy, andlibrary, and by the division of a system description of${\mathcal ALM}$into two parts:theoryandstructure. Atheoryconsists of one or more modules with a common theme, possibly organized into a module hierarchy based on adependency relation. It contains declarations of sorts, attributes, and properties of the domain together with axioms describing them.Structuresare used to describe the domain's objects. These features, together with the means for defining classes of a domain as special cases of previously defined ones, facilitate the stepwise development, testing, and readability of a knowledge base, as well as the creation of knowledge representation libraries.

Action language ℬ𝒞+

2015 ◽  
Vol 30 (4) ◽  
pp. 899-922 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joseph Babb ◽  
Joohyung Lee
Keyword(s):  
Main Idea ◽  
Answer Set Programming ◽  
Stable Model ◽  
Formal Models ◽  
Transition Systems ◽  
Action Languages ◽  
Action Language ◽  
Language Constructs ◽  
High Level ◽  
Answer Set

Abstract Action languages are formal models of parts of natural language that are designed to describe effects of actions. Many of these languages can be viewed as high-level notations of answer set programs structured to represent transition systems. However, the form of answer set programs considered in the earlier work is quite limited in comparison with the modern Answer Set Programming (ASP) language, which allows several useful constructs for knowledge representation, such as choice rules, aggregates and abstract constraint atoms. We propose a new action language called BC +, which closes the gap between action languages and the modern ASP language. The main idea is to define the semantics of BC + in terms of general stable model semantics for propositional formulas, under which many modern ASP language constructs can be identified with shorthands for propositional formulas. Language BC  + turns out to be sufficiently expressive to encompass the best features of other action languages, such as languages B , C , C + and BC . Computational methods available in ASP solvers are readily applicable to compute BC +, which led to an implementation of the language by extending system cplus2asp .

Developing Executable UML Components Based on fUML and Alf

2015 ◽  
pp. 345-364
Author(s):  
S. Motogna ◽  
I. Lazăr ◽  
B. Pârv
Keyword(s):  
Independent Component ◽  
Component Model ◽  
Model Driven ◽  
Action Language ◽  
Service Oriented ◽  
Development Processes ◽  
Architecture Frameworks ◽  
Dynamic Execution ◽  
Execution Semantics ◽  
Intended Use

Model-driven architecture frameworks provide an approach for specifying systems independently of a particular platform and for transforming such system models for a particular platform, but development processes based on MDA are not widely used today because they are in general heavy-weight processes: in most situations they cannot deliver (incrementally) partial implementations to be executed immediately. Executable UML means an execution semantics for a subset of actions sufficient for computational completeness. This chapter uses Alf as the fUML-based action language to describe the operations for iComponent: the proposed solution for a platform-independent component model for dynamic execution environments. Moreover, a UML profile for modeling components is defined and applied, following agile principles, to the development of service-oriented components for dynamic execution environments. The intended use of the proposed approach is enterprise systems.

Declarative Planning and Knowledge Representation in an Action Language

2011 ◽  
pp. 192-221 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas Eiter ◽  
Wolfgang Faber ◽  
Gerald Pfeifer
Keyword(s):  
Knowledge Representation ◽  
Logic Programming ◽  
Planning System ◽  
Epistemic State ◽  
Action Languages ◽  
Knowledge States ◽  
Action Language ◽  
High Level ◽  
Planning Problems ◽  
Complex Planning

This chapter introduces planning and knowledge representation in the declarative action language K. Rooted in the area of Knowledge Representation & Reasoning, action languages like K allow the formalization of complex planning problems involving non-determinism and incomplete knowledge in a very flexible manner. By giving an overview of existing planning languages and comparing these against our language, we aim on further promoting the applicability and usefulness of high-level action languages in the area of planning. As opposed to previously existing languages for modeling actions and change, K adopts a logic programming view where fluents representing the epistemic state of an agent might be true, false or undefined in each state. We will show that this view of knowledge states can be fruitfully applied to several well-known planning domains from the literature as well as novel planning domains. Remarkably, K often allows to model problems more concisely than previous action languages. All the examples given can be tested in an available implementation, the DLVK planning system.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document