Re: [ontolog-forum] intangibles (was RE: Why most classifications are fu

[Simon Spero <ses@xxxxxxx>]

The slides from Dana Nau's planning course are based around the textbook I mentioned in an earlier post (he is one of the coauthors, so it's probable that part of the book is based on earlier versions of the course).

One thing covered in the book are some of the work that is being done to deal with durations where the process can't cleanly be separated into those the phases, as the outcome of an action may be non-deterministic, etc.

There's been some interesting work using Shop2 for automated composition of web services.

Also, at one point Beth Huffer and Dan Hunter hooked either  JShop or JShop2 into Cyc.

Simon

On Aug 4, 2011 4:28 PM, "Obrst, Leo J." <lobrst@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> In the AI planning community, typically there are 3 phases of "planning", i.e,
> 1) planning
> The result of the planning phase is a plan (or plans) which then gets instantiated, i.e., concretized into a specific tree/graph task representation, where the tasks and subtasks are either logically (or, and, not, etc.) or temporally related (sequential, parallel, etc.), with pre-conditions (think of constraints on the tasks, their operations, or resulting values) and post-conditions (similarly, constraints).
> 2) scheduling
> 3) execution.
>
> Each of these phases have pre-conditions and post-conditions. One might look at the example of OWL-S as a kind of reactive planning paradigm applied to semantic web services. There are other planning languages such as the Planning Domain Definition Language (PDDL): http://ipc.informatik.uni-freiburg.de/PddlResources; the old STRIPS; Core Plan Representation, etc.; for other info, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automated_planning_and_scheduling; http://www4.ncsu.edu/~stamant/planning-resources.html.
>
> You might look at Dan Nau's slides on automated planning: http://www.cs.umd.edu/~nau/planning/slides/. His first chapter takes you through multiple definitions of plan.
>
> Thanks,
> Leo
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of doug foxvog
> Sent: Thursday, August 04, 2011 3:14 PM
> To: [ontolog-forum]
> Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] intangibles (was RE: Why most classifications are fuzzy)
>
> On Wed, August 3, 2011 15:20, Matthew West said:
>> John Sowa said:
>>> ....
>
>>> But I disagree that "a plan is a set of actions". Whether you're
>>> using a 4D analysis or 3+1D is irrelevant to the definition of 'plan'.
>
>> MW: Well I spent 30 years working for Shell, an organization that lived
>> and thrived by creating plans and then executing them.
>> My usage is just how I found the word being used there.
>
> I would suggest that even at Shell, a plan is a structured set of action
> templates, not a set of fully pre-described actions.
>
>>> As I suggest to anybody who works on knowledge representation or
>>> ontology, consult a good dictionary for a neutral (i.e., non-dogmatic,
>>> not theory laden) opinion about the way words are commonly used.
>>>
>>> For example, the Merriam-Webster 9th Collegiate Dictionary says
>>> that the word 'plan' comes from the same Latin root as the word
>>> 'plane'. That origin leads to MW definition #1:
>>>
>>> > 1. a drawing or diagram drawn on a plane.
>> ...
>>> > 2c. a detailed formulation of a program of action
>>
>> MW: It is this last that corresponds to the usage I am referring to. So
>> therefore not to any of the others, which are distinct.
>
> But speaking carefully, a "program of action" is not a set of actions,
> but an organization of action types. Not only is there a difference
> between actions, which are concrete events and types of action; the
> program of action can have temporal and other dependencies, while a
> mere set does not have such relationships among set members.
>
>> The plan of a building for instance is an entirely different
>> sort of thing (and is as
>> likely to be of building after it was built as before).
>> ...
>>> All these definitions say that a plan is a goal or a method.
>>
>> MW: Not so.
>
> The first definition of plan (the building plan) need not be either.
> It may merely be post hoc as MW states above.
>
>>> None of them identify a plan with the sequence of actions.
>>
>> MW: See 2c "a program of action" is just that.
>
> The program may not be just a linear sequence. And what are
> positioned in the program is action types, not action.
>
>>> If you prefer a British view, following are the four senses
>>> of 'plan' in the Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English:
>>>
>>> > 1. a (carefully considered) arrangement for carrying out
>>> > some future activity.
>>
>> MW: This is near enough the sense I mean.
>> ...
>>> Both dictionaries emphasize the goal (or a drawing of the goal)
>>> and the intentions that led to the goal: a plan "always implies
>>> mental formulation", and the arrangement is "carefully considered".
>>
>> MW: Of course.
>>>
>>> > MW: A sequence of action (types) is a method, but not a plan.
>>> > A plan may be a particular execution of a method (but not
>>> > necessarily).
>>>
>>> Please note that both dictionaries define a plan as either
>>> a goal or a method for achieving the goal. I have never
>>> heard anybody use the word 'plan' in the way you describe.
>>
>> MW: I suggest you both re-read what you have posted and talk to some
>> people who do project management for a living.
>
> I have certainly heard people in project management discuss plans which
> haven't been completed yet.
>
> -- doug f
>
>> ...
>>> Another comment about word usage:
>>>
>>> > JFS: The specifications of the plan could be called axioms,
>>> > constraints, or laws.
>>> >
>>> > MW: No. What is often the case is that the constraints
>>> > (resource availability, time, materials) are inputs to
>>> > formulating a feasible plan (I think of linear programming
>>> > in the oil industry). However, the constraints are not
>>> > the plan itself.
>>>
>>> My primary word was 'specifications'. They determine the methods
>>> the dictionaries mention. There are two ways to specify a method:
>>>
>>> 1. Procedural: An ordered sequence of imperative commands,
>>> as in a typical programming language.
>>>
>>> 2. Declarative: A set of propositions that state the starting
>>> conditions (prerequisites) and ending conditions (desired
>>> goal) for any procedure that implements the method.
>>>
>>> A procedural specification is useful for efficient execution
>>> by a specific machine or by a human agent who is not expected
>>> to innovate or to deviate from a fixed sequence.
>>>
>>> A declarative specification is more general, since it covers
>>> an open-ended variety of procedures that begin with the starting
>>> conditions and end with the desired goal. It allows greater
>>> flexibility in changing the order of execution and adapting
>>> to unforeseen circumstances. But it does require a more
>>> intelligent machine or human.
>>>
>>> I used the words 'axioms', 'constraints', or 'laws' for the
>>> propositions that state the preconditions and postconditions
>>> of a declarative specification. I am happy to replace those
>>> words with any other way of talking about the propositions.
>>>
>>> I'll admit that people rarely use the terminology of logicians
>>> or computer scientists to talk about their planning sessions.
>>> But you can analyze their informal discussions and classify
>>> their ways of describing plans as procedural, declarative,
>>> or some informal mixture of both.
>>
>> MW: I've spent enough of my working life doing planning that I know full
>> well that you have not produced a plan that anyone will accept as such
>> when
>> you have done no more than state the boundary conditions. Only when you
>> have
>> produced a solution that satisfies those boundary conditions do you have
>> something a budget holder would sign of as a plan.
>>
>> Regards
>>
>> Matthew West
>> Information Junction
>> Tel: +44 1489 880185
>> Mobile: +44 750 3385279
>> Skype: dr.matthew.west
>> matthew.west@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> http://www.informationjunction.co.uk/
>> http://www.matthew-west.org.uk/
>>
>> This email originates from Information Junction Ltd. Registered in England
>> and Wales No. 6632177.
>> Registered office: 2 Brookside, Meadow Way, Letchworth Garden City,
>> Hertfordshire, SG6 3JE.
>>
>>
>>
>> _________________________________________________________________
>> Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
>> Config Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
>> Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
>> Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
>> To join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J
>>
>>
>
>
> =============================================================
> doug foxvog doug@xxxxxxxxxx http://ProgressiveAustin.org
>
> "I speak as an American to the leaders of my own nation. The great
> initiative in this war is ours. The initiative to stop it must be ours."
> - Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.
> =============================================================
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
> Config Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
> Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
> Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
> To join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
> Config Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
> Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
> Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
> To join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J
>

_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/  
Config Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/  
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/ 
To join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J    (01)