- From: Drew McDermott <drew.mcdermott@yale.edu>
- Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2004 14:19:54 -0400 (EDT)
- To: public-sws-ig@w3.org
> > [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. The answer to the question, ignoring Jeff's remark, is: Pretty much all planners allows conditional expressions in effects. They correspond to the 'when' clause in PDDL: (:action A :precondition P0 :effect (and ... (when P1 E))) P0 must be true for A to be feasible at all. P1 must be true for A to have the effect E. P1 is called a _secondary precondition_. > > [Jeff] > > One problem for a planner is that if it wants, say, ?n1 to be > > less than 10, one way to get that is to use something that makes > > ?n1 less than 5, and that requires a reasoner that could make > > such connections. > [Donal] > I'm guessing "and most planners aren't capable of such reasoning" is= > implied? Your guess is correct. -- Drew -- -- Drew McDermott Yale Computer Science Department
Received on Monday, 28 June 2004 14:20:02 UTC