- From: pat hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
- Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2004 12:54:23 -0800
- To: Drew McDermott <drew.mcdermott@yale.edu>
- Cc: public-sws-ig@w3.org
...... > > > > [Drew] > > > The problem with the first scheme is that it works fine as long as >> > the participants are more or less in synchrony. But as soon as they >> > diverge somehow (even pause from communicating with each other while >> > they communicate with other parties), then either you have to >> > represent the Cartesian product of their states; >> >> [David] >> Who has to represent the Cartesian product? I guess you must be >> thinking that each enactment engine would have to do that; in other >> words, each enactment engine is keeping track of all the possible states >> of all of the participants. >> > >No, I was thinking that if the process must represent its entire state >in situations such as the one in which A and B have broken off >contact, then A and B will be behaving for a while as if completely >unsychronized, and so the possible states of the "process" will be the >Cartesian product of the possible states of A and B during that >period. Right. And just as an observation, if y'all are hoping to use any form of the situation calculus to do this reasoning, y'all are completely dead in the water at this point. In fact, this kind of example (or more generally, any er, situation, in which there is more than one process going on and you don't have total information about the exact timings) is going to kill off any situation-calculus or STRIPS-type pre/postconditions reasoner. Pat -- --------------------------------------------------------------------- IHMC (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973 home 40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office Pensacola (850)202 4440 fax FL 32501 (850)291 0667 cell phayes@ihmc.us http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes
Received on Monday, 5 January 2004 15:54:31 UTC