Skip to main content

Representing concurrent actions and solving conflicts

  • Selected Papers
  • Conference paper
  • First Online:

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNAI,volume 861))

Abstract

As an extension of the well-known Action Description language A introduced by M. Gelfond and V. Lifschitz [7], C. Baral and M. Gelfond recently defined the dialect A C which allows the description of concurrent actions [1]. Also, a sound but incomplete encoding of A C by means of an extended logic program was presented there. In this paper, we work on interpretations of contradictory inferences from partial action descriptions. Employing an interpretation different from the one implicitly used in A C , we present a new dialect A + C , which allows to infer non-contradictory information from contradictory descriptions and to describe nondeterminism and uncertainty. Furthermore, we give the first sound and complete encoding of A C , using equational logic programming, and extend it to A + C as well.

The second author was supported in part by ESPRIT within basic research action MEDLAR-II under grant no. 6471 and by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG) within project KONNEKTIONSBEWEISER under grant no. Bi 228/6-1.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. C. Baral and M. Gelfond. Representing Concurrent Actions in Extended Logic Programming. In R. Bajcsy, ed., Proc. of IJCAI, p. 866–871, Chambéry, August 1993. Morgan Kaufmann.

    Google Scholar 

  2. W. Bibel. A Deductive Solution for Plan Generation. New Generation Computing, 4:115–132, 1986

    Google Scholar 

  3. K. L. Clark. Negation as Failure. In H. Gallaire and J. Minker, ed.'s, Workshop Logic and Data Bases, p. 293–322. Plenum Press, 1978.

    Google Scholar 

  4. M. Denecker and D. de Schreye. Representing Incomplete Knowledge in Abductive Logic Programming. In D. Miller, ed., Proc. of ILPS, p. 147–163, Vancouver, October 1993. MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  5. P. M. Dung. Representing Actions in Logic Programming and its Applications in Database Updates. In D. S. Warren, ed., Proc. of ICLP, p. 222–238, Budapest, June 1993. MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  6. R. E. Fikes and N. J. Nilsson. STRIPS: A new approach to the application of theorem proving to problem solving. Artificial Intelligence, 5(2):189–208, 1971.

    Google Scholar 

  7. M. Gelfond and V. Lifschitz. Representing Action and Change by Logic Programs. Journal of Logic Programming, 17:301–321, 1993.

    Google Scholar 

  8. G. Große. Propositional State-Event Logic. To appear JELIA'94, Springer LNAI.

    Google Scholar 

  9. G. Große, S. Hölldobler, J. Schneeberger, U. Sigmund, and M. Thielscher. Equational Logic Programming, Actions, and Change. In K. Apt, ed., Proc. of IJCSLP, p. 177–191, Washington, 1992. MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  10. S. Hölldobler and J. Schneeberger. A New Deductive Approach to Planning. New Generation Computing, 8:225–244, 1990.

    Google Scholar 

  11. S. Hölldobler and M. Thielscher. Actions and Specificity. In D. Miller, ed., Proc. of ILPS, p. 164–180, Vancouver, October 1993. MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  12. S. Hölldobler and M. Thielscher. Computing Change and Specificity with Equational Logic Programs. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence, special issue on Processing of Declarative Knowledge, 1994. (To appear).

    Google Scholar 

  13. J. Jaffar, J.-L. Lassez, and M. J. Maher. A theory of complete logic programs with equality. Journal of Logic Programming, 1(3):211–223, 1984.

    Google Scholar 

  14. G. N. Kartha. Soundness and Completeness Theorems for Three Formalizations of Actions. In R. Bajcsy, ed., Proc. of IJCAI, p. 724–729, Chambéry, France, August 1993. Morgan Kaufmann.

    Google Scholar 

  15. F. Lin and Y. Shoham. Concurrent Actions in the Situation Calculus. In Proc. of AAAI, p. 590–595, South Lake Tahoe, California, 1992.

    Google Scholar 

  16. E. Sandewall. Features and Fluents. Technical Report LiTH-IDA-R-92-30, Institutionen för datavetenskap, Technical University Linköping, Schweden, 1992.

    Google Scholar 

  17. E. Sandewall. The range of applicability of nonmonotonic logics for the inertia problem. In R. Bajcsy, ed., Proc. of IJCAI, p. 738–743, Chambéry, France, August 1993. Morgan Kaufmann.

    Google Scholar 

  18. J. C. Shepherdson. SLDNF-Resolution with Equality. Journal of Automated Reasoning, 8:297–306, 1992.

    Google Scholar 

  19. M. Thielscher. Representing Actions in Equational Logic Programming. In P. Van Hentenryck, ed., Proc. of ICLP, p. 207–224, Santa Margherita Ligure, Italy, 1994. MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Bernhard Nebel Leonie Dreschler-Fischer

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 1994 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

Bornscheuer, SE., Thielscher, M. (1994). Representing concurrent actions and solving conflicts. In: Nebel, B., Dreschler-Fischer, L. (eds) KI-94: Advances in Artificial Intelligence. KI 1994. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 861. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-58467-6_2

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-58467-6_2

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-540-58467-4

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-540-48979-5

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics