New Generation Computing

, Volume 8, Issue 3, pp 225–244 | Cite as

A new deductive approach to planning

  • Steffen Hölldobler
  • Josef Schneeberger
Regular Papers
Received:
Revised:

Abstract

We introduce a new deductive approach to planning which is based on Horn clauses. Plans as well as situations are represented as terms and, thus, are first-class objects. We do neither need frame axioms nor state-literals. The only rule of inference is the SLDE-resolution rule, i.e. SLD-resolution, where the traditional unification algorithm has been replaced by anE-unification procedure. We exemplify the properties of our method such as forward and backward reasoning, plan checking, and the integration of general theories. Finally, we present the calculus and show that it is sound and complete.

Keywords

Logic Programming Deductive Planning Equational Reasoning 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1).
    Lifschitz, V., “On the Semantics of STRIPS,” inProceedings of the Workshop on Reasoning about Actions and Plans (M. P. Georgeff, and A. L. Lansky, eds.), Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, Los Altos, pp. 1–8, 1986.Google Scholar
  2. 2).
    Chapman, D., “Planning for Conjunctive Goals,”Artificial Intelligence, Vol. 32, No. 3, pp. 333–377, 1987.MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  3. 3).
    Hertzberg, J. and Horz, A., “Towards a theory of conflict detection and resolution in nonlinear plans,” inInternational Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 1989.Google Scholar
  4. 4).
    Green, C., “Application of theorem proving to problem solving,” inInternational Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, Los Altos, CA, pp. 219–239, 1969.Google Scholar
  5. 5).
    McCarthy, J. and Hayes, P., “Some Philosophical Problems from the Standpoint of Artificial Intelligence,”Machine Intelligence, Vol. 4 (B. Meltzer, D. Michie, eds.), Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh, pp. 463–502, 1969.Google Scholar
  6. 6).
    Kowalski, R.,Logic for Problem Solving, North-Holland, New York, Amsterdam, Oxford, 1979.MATHGoogle Scholar
  7. 7).
    Bibel, W., “A deductive solution for plan generation,”New Generation Computing, Vol. 4, pp. 115–132, 1986.MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8).
    Fronhöfer, B., “Linearity and Plan Generation,”New Generation Computing, Vol. 5, pp. 213–225, 1987.MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9).
    Bibel, W., del Cerro, L. F., Fronhöfer, B., and Herzig, A., “Plan Generation by Linear Proofs: on Semantics,” inProceedings of the German Workshop on Artificial Intelligence, Springer-Verlag, 1989.Google Scholar
  10. 10).
    Waldinger, R., “Achieving Several Goals Simultaneously,”Machine Intelligence, Vol. 8, Elsevier Publishing Company, 1977.Google Scholar
  11. 11).
    Sheperdson, J. C., “Negation as Failure: A Comparison of Clark’s Complete Data Base and Reiter’s Closed World Assumption,”Journal of Logic Programming, Vol. 1, No. 1, pp. 51–79, 1984.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  12. 12).
    Gallier, J. H. and Raatz, S., “Extending SLD-Resolution to Equational Horn Clauses Using E-Unification,”Journal of Logic Programming, Vol. 6, pp. 3–44, 1989.MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  13. 13).
    Hölldobler, S.,Foundations of Equational Logic Programming, Vol. 353 LNCS, Springer-Verlag, 1989.Google Scholar
  14. 14).
    Siekmann, J., “Unification Theory,” inProceedings of the European Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 365–400, 1986.Google Scholar
  15. 15).
    Lloyd, J. W.,Foundations of Logic Programming, Springer-Verlag, 1984.Google Scholar
  16. 16).
    Sussman, G. J.,A Computer Model of Skill Acquisition, Elsevier Publishing Company, 1975.Google Scholar
  17. 17).
    Reiter, R., “On closed world data bases,” inProceedings of the Workshop on Logic and Databases (N. Gallaire, ed.), 1977.Google Scholar
  18. 18).
    Jaffar, J., Lassez, J.-L., and Maher, M. J., “A Theory of Complete Logic Programs with Equality,” inProceedings of the International Conference on Fifth Generation Computer Systems, pp. 175–184, 1984.Google Scholar
  19. 19).
    Jaffar, J., Lassez, J.-L., and Maher, M. J., “A Logic Programming Language Scheme,”Logic Programming (DeGroot, Lindstrom, eds.), Prentice Hall, pp. 441–467, 1986.Google Scholar
  20. 20).
    Warren, D. H. D., “An Abstract Prolog Instruction Set,”Technical Note 309, Stanford Research Institute (SRI), 1983.Google Scholar
  21. 21).
    Bürckert, H. J., “Lazy Theory Unification in Prolog: An Extension of the Warren abstract machine,” inProceedings of the German Workshop on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 277–288, 1986.Google Scholar
  22. 22).
    Swartout, W. (ed.), “DARPA Santa Cruz Workshop on Planning,”AI Magazine, pp. 115–130, Summer, 1988.Google Scholar
  23. 23).
    Kowalski, R., “Logic Programming,” inProceedings of the World Computer Congress of the IFIP, pp. 133–145, 1983.Google Scholar
  24. 24).
    Kowalski, R., “Directions of Logic Programming,” inProceedings of the Symposium on Logic Programming, Computer Society, Press of the IEEE, Washington, pp. 2–7, 1985.Google Scholar
  25. 25).
    Buntine, W. L. and Bürckert, H.-J., “On Solving Equations and Disequations,”Technical Report, FB Informatik, Universität Kaiserslautern, 1989.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Ohmsha, Ltd. and Springer 1990

Authors and Affiliations

  • Steffen Hölldobler
    • 1
  • Josef Schneeberger
    • 2
  1. 1.International Computer Science InstituteBerkeleyUSA
  2. 2.FG Intellektik, FB InformatikTechnische Hochschule DarmstadtDarmstadtGermany (W)

Personalised recommendations