Re: OWL-S preconditions - practical issues

On Fri, 2004-06-25 at 17:57, Jeff Dalton wrote:
> Quoting Donal Murtagh <domurtag@cs.tcd.ie>:
> 
> > The problem with planners is that compatibility of preconditions and
> > effects is based on (lexical) name matching. Although SHOP2 can
> > evaluate simple expressions such as ((eval (< ?n1 5)) in the
> > precondition of an operator, AFAIK, it is not possible to assert
> > an effect which is a conditional expression, e.g. to state that
> > "the effect of this process/operator is that (< ?n1 5) is true".
> 
> Something like that could be treated in a planner as a constraint.
> 

It seems the term "constraint" doesn't mean the same to you as
"precondition", could you explain what you mean by "constraint"?


> I don't know off-hand of any planner that handles such numeric
> constraints, though some resource constraints might be equivalent.
>

Received on Friday, 25 June 2004 13:17:03 UTC