Skip to main content

Representing Actions over Dynamic Domains

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
PRICAI 2002: Trends in Artificial Intelligence (PRICAI 2002)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNAI,volume 2417))

Included in the following conference series:

Abstract

Current action theories are usually based on static domains in the sense that objects in the domain are fixed and actions only change properties or relationships related to these objects, but cannot create new objects or destroy current objects in the domain. In this paper, we propose a new action language called \( \mathcal{D} \) which handles dynamic domains. In the context of \( \mathcal{D} \) actions may not only have normal effects as in other action theories, but also have effects of creating or destroying things in the domain. \( \mathcal{D} \) has a similar syntax of \( \mathcal{A} \) family languages but with a different model theoretic semantics in which a term is allowed to be undefined in the domain at some states. We also investigate the semantic properties of \( \mathcal{D} \) in detail and illustrate how our approach overcomes the difficulty in representing actions over dynamic domains.

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

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. E. Bencivenga, Free logic. Handbook of Philosophical Logic, Vol. III, pp373–426, 1986.

    Google Scholar 

  2. M. Gelfond and V. Lifschitz, Representing action and change by logic programs. Journal of Logic Programming, 17: 301–322 (1993).

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  3. E. Giunchiglia and V. Lifschitz, An action language based on causal explanation: preliminary report. In Proceedings of AAAI-98, pp 623–630, 1998.

    Google Scholar 

  4. G.N. Kartha and V. Lifschitz, Actions with indirect effects (Preliminary report). In Proceedings of Kr’94. 1994.

    Google Scholar 

  5. P. Liberatore, The complexity if the language \( \mathcal{A} \) . Electronic Transactions on Artificial Intelligence, Vol. 1 (1997) 13–38.

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  6. V. Lifschitz, Two components of an action language. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence, 21 (1997), pp. 305–320.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  7. M. Winslett. Reasoning about action using a possible models approach. In Proceedings of AAAI-88, pages 89–93, 1988.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Y. Zhang and N.Y. Foo The language \( \mathcal{D} \) -An action language over dynamic domains. Manuscript, January 2002.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2002 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

Zhang, Y., Foo, N.Y. (2002). Representing Actions over Dynamic Domains. In: Ishizuka, M., Sattar, A. (eds) PRICAI 2002: Trends in Artificial Intelligence. PRICAI 2002. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 2417. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-45683-X_9

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-45683-X_9

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-540-44038-3

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-540-45683-4

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics