welcome: please sign in
location: Diff for "SystemCompetition"
Differences between revisions 2 and 3
Revision 2 as of 2010-11-19 10:32:08
Size: 6136
Comment:
Revision 3 as of 2010-11-19 10:33:02
Size: 5407
Comment:
Deletions are marked like this. Additions are marked like this.
Line 18: Line 18:
<!--Navigation Panel-->
<A NAME="tex2html13"
  HREF="node2.html">
<IMG WIDTH="37" HEIGHT="24" ALIGN="BOTTOM" BORDER="0" ALT="next" SRC="next.gif"></A>
<A NAME="tex2html11"
  HREF="prova.html">
<IMG WIDTH="26" HEIGHT="24" ALIGN="BOTTOM" BORDER="0" ALT="up" SRC="up.gif"></A>
<A NAME="tex2html5"
  HREF="prova.html">
<IMG WIDTH="63" HEIGHT="24" ALIGN="BOTTOM" BORDER="0" ALT="previous" SRC="prev.gif"></A>
<BR>
<B> Next:</B> <A NAME="tex2html14"
  HREF="node2.html">About this document ...</A>
<B> Up:</B> <A NAME="tex2html12"
  HREF="prova.html">The Third ASP Competition</A>
<B> Previous:</B> <A NAME="tex2html6"
  HREF="prova.html">The Third ASP Competition</A>
<BR>
<BR>
<!--End of Navigation Panel-->

Competition

The regulations of the Competition are conceived taking into account the following considerations:

  1. Many families of formalisms, which can be considered to a large extent neighbors of the ASP community, have reached a significant level of language standardization, ranging from the Constraint Handling Rules (CHR) family [#!fruh-2009-CHR!#], the Satisfiability Modulo Theories SMT-LIB format [#!barr-etal-2010-SMT-LIB!#], the Planning Domain Definition Language (PDDL) [#!pddl-resources-web!#], to the TPTP format used in the Automated Theorem Proving System Competition (CASC) [#!tptp-web!#]. The above experiences witness that the availability of the common ground of a standard language, possibly undergoing continuous refinement and extension, has usually boosted the availability of resources, the deployment of the technology at hand into practical applications, and the effectiveness of systems. Nonetheless, ASP is missing a standard, high-level input language.

    We think, however, that the ASP community is mature enough for starting the development of a common standard input format: an ASP system can be roughly seen as composed of a front-end input language processor and a model generator. The first module is usually (but not necessarily) named grounder, for it produces a propositional program obtained from an higher-level specification of the problem at hand.

    Incidentally, currently developed ASP grounder systems have recently reached a good degree of maturity, and, above all, they have reached a fairly large degree of overlap in their input formats. This paves the way for taking the very first serious step towards the proposal of a common input language for ASP solvers.

    It thus makes sense to play (part of) the Third ASP competition on the grounds of a common draft input format, in order to promote the adoption of a newly devised standard, and foster the birth of a new standardization working group.

    In order to met the above goals, the competition input format should be large enough to embed all of the basic constructs included in the language originally specified in [#!gelf-lifs-91!#] (and lifted to its non-ground version), yet conservative enough to allow all the participants to adhere to the standard draft with little or no effort.

  2. Performance of a given ASP system S

ASP Competition 2011: SystemCompetition (last edited 2010-11-22 08:32:45 by GiovambattistaIanni)