Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

International Conference on Formal and Applied Practical Reasoning

FAPR 1996: Practical Reasoning pp 679–690Cite as

Towards the assessment of logics for concurrent actions

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:

  • 128 Accesses

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNAI,volume 1085))

Abstract

We have introduced concurrency into the framework of Sandewall. The resulting formalism is capable of reasoning about interdependent as well as independent concurrent actions. Following Sandewall's systematical method, we have then applied the entailment criterion PCM to selecting intended models of common sense theories where concurrent actions are allowed, and proved that the criterion leads to only intended models for a subset of such theories.

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. James F. Allen. Temporal reasoning and planning. In J. F. Allen, H. A. Kautz, R. N. Pelavin, and J. D. Tenenberg, editors, Reasoning about Plans, pages 1–68. Morgan Kaufmann, 1991.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Michael P. Georgeff. The representation of events in multigent domains. In AAAI, pages 70–75, 1986.

    Google Scholar 

  3. G. Groose and H. Khalil. State event logic. In MEDLAR Special Issue of the Bulletin of the Interest Group in Pure and Applied Logics (IGPL), To appear.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Robert Kowalski and Marek Sergot. A logic-based calculus of events. New Generation Computing, 4:67–95, 1986.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Amy L. Lansky. Localised representation and planning. In J. Allen, J. Hendler, and A. Tate, editors, Readings in Planning, pages 670–674. Morgan Kaufmann, 1990.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Richard N. Pelavin. Planning with simultaneous actions and external events. In J. F. Allen, H. A. Kautz, R. N. Pelavin, and J. D. Tenenberg, editors, Reasoning about Plans, pages 127–211. Morgan Kaufmann, 1991.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Erik Sandewall. The range of applicability of nonmonotonic logics for the inertia problem. In IJCAI, 1993.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Erik Sandewall. Features and Fluents, A Systematic Approach to the Representation of Knowledge about Dynamical Systems. Oxford University Press, 1994.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Y. Shoham. Reasoning about Change: Time and Causation from the Standpoint of Artificial Intelligence. MIT Press, Massachusetts, 1988.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Erik Sandewall and Ralph Rönnquist. A representation of action structures. In AAAI, pages 89–97, 1986.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Michael Thielscher. On the logic of dynamic systems. In AAAI Spring Symposium: Extending Theories of Action, Stanford University, 1995.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Choong-Ho Yi. Reasoning about concurrent actions in the trajectory semantics. Licentiate Thesis, 1995. Department of Computer and Information Science, Linköping University.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Computer Science, University of Karlstad, S-651 88, Karlstad, Sweden

    Choong -Ho Yi

Authors
  1. Choong -Ho Yi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Dov M. Gabbay Hans Jürgen Ohlbach

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 1996 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

Yi, C.H. (1996). Towards the assessment of logics for concurrent actions. In: Gabbay, D.M., Ohlbach, H.J. (eds) Practical Reasoning. FAPR 1996. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 1085. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-61313-7_109

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-61313-7_109

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-540-61313-8

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-540-68454-1

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation