- From: Drew McDermott <drew.mcdermott@yale.edu>
- Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2004 12:16:38 -0400 (EDT)
- To: public-sws-ig@w3.org
> > [Bijan Parsia] > >Just out of curiosity, does PDDL handle your model correctly? NIST PSL? ( > >I would expect the latter to.) > > [Austin Tate] > NIST PSL has node ends based constraints so can handle this. > > PDDL - I am not sure. Drew may be able to tell us? The current official version of PDDL (the one used in this year's planning competition) has "durative actions," actions which take a certain amount of time to occur, during which other things can happen. However, it is still the case that discrete all effects occur at the beginning or the end of the action execution. There is an unofficial extension discussed in connection with the previous competition (in 2002) in which discrete effects occur at the start or end of an action, but continuous effects occur throughout. For example, if fuel is being consumed, it doesn't vanish at the end, but decreases continuously over the duration of the action. I'm not clear on exactly what Austin's model allows. If it allows discrete effects to occur at predictable offsets from the start time of an action, then I assume one could express that in terms of a series of simpler actions. It might be a lot clumsier. I have lobbied within the PDDL community to allow for a notion of autonomous process, which is like an action except that it occurs whenever its precondition is true. If the precondition is true over an interval, then the process occurs over that interval, and its effects can include continouos changes in fluents. By setting up timer effects such as (when (=~ (elapsed (proc...)) (+ (start-time) 3)) E) one could have an effect E occur at a fixed interval after the start of the process. You can do a lot of other cool things, too. -- Drew -- -- Drew McDermott Yale University CS Dept.
Received on Friday, 30 April 2004 12:16:38 UTC