Using the Constraint Model as a Shared Representation of Intentions for Emergency Response

The aim of this paper is to describe the I-X system with its underlying representation: . The latter can be seen as a description of an agent’s intentions, which can be shared and communicated amongst multiple I-X agents to coordinate activities in an emergency response scenario. In general, an object describes the product of a synthesis task. In the multi-agent context it can be used to describe the intentions of an agent, although it also includes elements of beliefs about the world and goals to be achieved, thus showing a close relationship with the BDI agent model which we will explore in this paper. From a user’s perspective, I-X Process Panels can be used as an intelligent to-do list that assists emergency responders in applying pre-defined standard operating procedures in different types of emergencies. In particular, multiple instances of the I-X Process Panels can be used as a distributed system to coordinate the efforts of independent emergency responders as well as responders within the same organization. Furthermore, it can be used as an agent wrapper for other software systems such as webservices to integrate these into the emergency response team as virtual members. At the heart of I-X is a Hierarchical Task Network (HTN) planner that can be used to synthesize courses of action automatically or explore alternative options manually.

[1]  Enrico Motta,et al.  Compendium: Making Meetings into Knowledge Events , 2001 .

[2]  Elke Hinrichs,et al.  Sharing To-Do Lists with a Distributed Task Manager , 1993, ECSCW.

[3]  Austin Tate Integrating constraint management into an AI planner , 1995, Artif. Intell. Eng..

[4]  Gerhard Wickler,et al.  Using expressive and flexible action representations to reason about capabilties for intelligent agent cooperation , 2000 .

[5]  Hiroaki Kitano,et al.  RoboCup Rescue A Grand Challenge for Multiagent and Intelligent Systems , 2001 .

[6]  Paolo Traverso,et al.  Automated planning - theory and practice , 2004 .

[7]  Jeff Conklin,et al.  Dialog Mapping: Reflections on an Industrial Strength Case Study , 2003, Visualizing Argumentation.

[8]  Austin Tate,et al.  I-P² - Intelligent Process Panels to Support Coalition Operations , 2002 .

[9]  Munindar P. Singh,et al.  Formal methods in DAI: logic-based representation and reasoning , 1999 .

[10]  Thomas P. Moran,et al.  Design Space Analysis: Bridging from Theory to Practice via Design Rationale , 1991 .

[11]  Austin Tate,et al.  Rationale in planning: causality, dependencies, and decisions , 1998, The Knowledge Engineering Review.

[12]  Austin Tate,et al.  Generating Project Networks , 1977, IJCAI.

[13]  Peter Norvig,et al.  Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach , 1995 .

[14]  Peter Norvig,et al.  Artificial intelligence - a modern approach, 2nd Edition , 2003, Prentice Hall series in artificial intelligence.

[15]  Austin Tate,et al.  Integrating Collaboration and Activity-Oriented Planning for Coalition Operations Support , 2005, RoboCup.

[16]  Maarten Sierhuis,et al.  Hypermedia support for argumentation-based rationale: 15 years on from gIBIS and QOC , 2005 .

[17]  Albert M. Selvin Supporting Collaborative Analysis and Design with Hypertext Functionality , 1999, J. Digit. Inf..

[18]  Hugh G. Lewis,et al.  MIAKT: Combining Grid and Web Services for Collaborative Medical Decision Making , 2004 .

[19]  Ramon Prudencio S. Toledo Visualizing Argumentation: Software Tools for Collaborative and Educational Sense-Making , 2005, Inf. Vis..

[20]  Stephen Potter,et al.  FireGrid: Integrated emergency response and fire safety engineering for the future built environment , 2005 .

[21]  Earl D. Sacerdoti,et al.  The Nonlinear Nature of Plans , 1975, IJCAI.