Re: OWL-S preconditions - practical issues

On Mon, 2004-06-28 at 19:19, Drew McDermott wrote:
> > > [Jeff Dalton]
> > > I'm not sure that's enough to make it an effect as such,
> > > rather than some kind of post-condition, because presumably
> > > the way it's made true that ?n1 is < 5 is by giving ?n1
> > > some specific value that is less than 5, and it's giving it
> > > that value that's the effect, strictly speaking.
> 
> > [Donal Murtagh]
> > Whether it's an effect or post-condition, do you know of planners that=20
> > allow such conditional expressions in the postconditions/effects of=
> >  operators?
> 
> I don't see how Donal's question follows up to Jeff's remark.


What I meant to ask was whether planners typically allow one to define
an effect which involves a comparison operator e.g. (< ?x 5) meaning "?x
will be less than 5 once this process has completed"?

Received on Monday, 28 June 2004 14:42:19 UTC