On the Benefit of Fusing DL-Reasoning with HTN-Planning

  • Ronny Hartanto
  • Joachim Hertzberg
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 5803)

Abstract

Keeping planning problems as small as possible is a must in order to cope with complex tasks and environments. Earlier, we have described a method for cascading Description Logic (dl) representation and reasoning on the one hand, and Hierarchical Task Network (htn) action planning on the other. The planning domain description as well as the fundamental htn planning concepts are represented in dl and can therefore be subject to dl reasoning. From these representations, concise planning problems are generated for htn planners. We show by way of case study that this method yields significantly smaller planning problem descriptions than regular representations do in htn planning. The method is presented through a case study of a robot navigation domain and the blocks world domain. We present the benefits of using this approach in comparison with a pure htn planning approach.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Gil, Y.: Description Logics and Planning. AI Magazine 26(2), 73–84 (2005)MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Hartanto, R., Hertzberg, J.: Fusing DL Reasoning with HTN Planning. In: Dengel, A.R., Berns, K., Breuel, T.M., Bomarius, F., Roth-Berghofer, T.R. (eds.) KI 2008. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 5243, pp. 62–69. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Baader, F., et al.: The Description Logic Handbook: Theory, Implementation, and Applications. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2003)MATHGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ghallab, M., Nau, D., Traverso, P.: Automated Planning: Theory and Practice. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco (2004)MATHGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Dean, M., et al.: OWL web ontology language reference. W3C Recommendation (2004), http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-ref/
  6. 6.
    Horrocks, I., Patel-Schneider, P.F., van Harmelen, F.: From SHIQ and RDF to OWL: The Making of a Web Ontology Language. J. Web Semantics 1(1), 7–26 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Sirin, E., et al.: Pellet: A Practical OWL-DL Reasoner. J. Web Semantics 5(2) (2007)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Tsarkov, D., Horrocks, I.: FaCT++ Description Logic Reasoner: System Description. In: Furbach, U., Shankar, N. (eds.) IJCAR 2006. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 4130, pp. 292–297. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Haarslev, V., Möller, R.: Racer: An OWL Reasoning Agent for the Semantic Web. In: Proc. Intl. Workshop Applications, Products and Services of Web-based Support Systems, pp. 91–95 (2003)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ilghami, O., Nau, D.S.: A General Approach to Synthesize Problem-Specific Planners. Technical report, Dept. Comp. Sc., ISR, and IACS Univ. Maryland (2003)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gupta, N., Nau, D.S.: On the complexity of blocks-world planning. Artificial Intelligence 56(2-3), 223–254 (1992)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ronny Hartanto
    • 1
    • 2
  • Joachim Hertzberg
    • 2
  1. 1.Bonn-Rhein-Sieg Univ. of Applied SciencesSankt AugustinGermany
  2. 2.University of OsnabrückOsnabrückGermany

Personalised recommendations