- From: Drew McDermott <drew.mcdermott@yale.edu>
- Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2004 14:43:41 -0500 (EST)
- To: public-sws-ig@w3.org
> [Charlie Abela]
> Will there be the need for such planning ontologies that define
> planning concepts like operators, actions etc, as related to WSC (web
> services composition)? If yes what advantages might this provide to
> the composition problem? Could this be a starting point for
> standardising composed plans created by specific planning technique?
I would focus on the planning algorithms, not the ontologies. The
ontologies can play two roles: (1) They can serve as a communication
medium for people; that is, they could allow you to state the
semantics of your plan notation formally, thus reducing disagreement
about what a plan actually does, whether a plan solve a problem, etc.
(2) They can serve as the substrate for mechanical theorem proving.
This could be useful if you want to intermix planning with other
reasoning tasks, such as proving that no plan exists to solve a
certain problem.
If you find yourself working on details of an ontology that have no
bearing on (1) or (2), you could probably find a better use of your
time.
-- Drew
--
-- Drew McDermott
Yale University CS Dept.
Received on Thursday, 5 February 2004 14:43:44 UTC