Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Two components of an action language

  • Published:
Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Some of the recent work on representing action makes use of high-level action languages. In this paper we show that an action language can be represented as the sum of two distinct parts: an “action description language” and an “action query language.” A set of propositions in an action description language describes the effects of actions on states. Mathematically, it defines a transition system of the kind familiar from the theory of finite automata. An action query language serves for expressing properties of paths in a given transition system. We define the general concepts of a transition system, of an action description language and of an action query language, give a series of examples of languages of both kinds, and show how to combine a description language and a query language into one. This construction makes it possible to design the two components of an action language independently, which leads to the simplification and clarification of the theory of actions.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. K. Apt and M. Bezem, Acyclic programs, in: Logic Programming: Proc. of the Seventh Int. Conf., eds. D. Warren and P. Szeredi (1990) pp. 617–633.

  2. A. Baker, A simple solution to the Yale Shooting Problem, in: Proc. of the First Int. Conf. on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning, eds. R. Brachman, H. Levesque and R. Reiter (1989) pp. 11–20.

  3. C. Baral, M. Gelfond and A. Provetti, Reasoning about actions: laws, observations and hypotheses, Journal of Logic Programming (1997), to appear.

  4. C. Baral, Reasoning about actions: Non-deterministic effects, constraints, and qualifications, in: Proc. of IJCAI-95 (1995) pp. 2017–2023.

  5. C. Boutilier and N. Friedman, Nondeterministic actions and the frame problem, in: Working Notes of the Symposium on Extending Theories of Actions (1995).

  6. G. Brewka and J. Hertzberg, How to do things with worlds: On formalizing actions and plans, Journal of Logic and Computation 3(5) (1993).

  7. C. Elkan, Reasoning about action in first-order logic, in: Proc. of the 1992 Canadian Conf. on Artificial Intelligence (1992).

  8. K. Eshghi and R. Kowalski, Abduction compared with negation as failure, in: Logic Programming: Proc. of the Sixth Int. Conf., eds. G. Levi and M. Martelli (1989) pp. 234–255.

  9. C. Evans, Negation-as-failure as an approach to the Hanks and McDermott problem, in: Proc. of the Second Int. Symp. on Artificial Intelligence (1989).

  10. H. Geffner, Causal theories for nonmonotonic reasoning, in: Proc. AAAI-90 (1990) pp. 524–530.

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

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  12. M. Gelfond, Autoepistemic logic and formalization of commonsense reasoning, in: Non-Monotonic Reasoning: 2nd International Workshop (Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence 346), eds. M. Reinfrank, J. de Kleer, M. Ginsberg and E. Sandewall (Springer, 1989) pp. 176–186.

  13. M.R. Genesereth and N.J. Nilsson, Logical Foundations of Artificial Intelligence (Morgan Kaufmann, San Mateo, CA, 1987).

    Google Scholar 

  14. M. Ginsberg and D. Smith, Reasoning about action II: the qualification problem, Artificial Intelligence 35 (1988) 311–342.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  15. E. Giunchiglia and V. Lifschitz, Dependent fluents, in: Proc. IJCAI-95 (1995) pp. 1964–1969.

  16. E. Giunchiglia, G.N. Kartha and V. Lifschitz, Actions with indirect effects (extended abstract), in: Working Notes of the Symposium on Extending Theories of Actions (1995).

  17. B. Haugh, Simple causal minimizations for temporal persistence and projection, in: Proc. AAAI-87 (1987) pp. 218–223.

  18. G.N. Kartha and V. Lifschitz, Actions with indirect effects (preliminary report), in: Proc. of the Fourth Int. Conf. on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (1994) pp. 341–350.

  19. V. Lifschitz, Formal theories of action (preliminary report), in: Proc. of IJCAI-87 (1987) pp. 966–972.

  20. F. Lin and R. Reiter, State constraints revisited, Journal of Logic and Computation 4 (1994) 655–678.

    MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  21. F. Lin and Y. Shoham, Provably correct theories of action (preliminary report), in: Proc. AAAI-91 (1991) pp. 349–354.

  22. F. Lin, Embracing causality in specifying the indirect effects of actions, in: Proc. of IJCAI-95 (1995) pp. 1985–1991.

  23. N. McCain and H. Turner, A causal theory of ramifications and qualifications, in: Proc. of IJCAI-95 (1995) pp. 1978–1984.

  24. J. McCarthy and P. Hayes, Some philosophical problems from the standpoint of artificial intelligence, in: Machine Intelligence, Vol. 4, eds. B. Meltzer and D. Michie (Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh, 1969) pp. 463–502. Reproduced in [25].

    Google Scholar 

  25. J. McCarthy, Formalizing Common Sense: Papers by John McCarthy (Ablex, Norwood, NJ, 1990).

    Google Scholar 

  26. P. Morris, The anomalous extension problem in default reasoning, Artificial Intelligence 35(3) (1988) 383–399.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  27. J. Pinto and R. Reiter, Temporal reasoning in logic programming: a case for the situation calculus, in: Proc. of ICLP-93 (1993) pp. 203–221.

  28. R. Reiter, The frame problem in the situation calculus: a simple solution (sometimes) and a completeness result for goal regression, in: Artificial Intelligence and Mathematical Theory of Computation: Papers in Honor of John McCarthy, ed. V. Lifschitz (Academic Press, 1991) pp. 359–380.

  29. E. Sandewall, Features and Fluents, Vol. 1 (Oxford University Press, 1995).

  30. L. Schubert, Monotonic solution of the frame problem in the situation calculus: an efficient method for worlds with fully specified actions, in: Knowledge Representation and Defeasible Reasoning, eds. H.E. Kyburg, R. Loui and G. Carlson (Kluwer, 1990) pp. 23–67.

  31. M. Thielscher, Computing ramifications by postprocessing, in: Proc. of IJCAI-95 (1995) pp. 1994–2000.

  32. H. Turner, Representing actions in logic programs and default theories: a situation calculus approach, Journal of Logic Programming (1997), to appear.

  33. M. Winslett, Reasoning about action using a possible models approach, in: Proc. AAAI-88 (1988) pp. 89–93.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Computer Sciences, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX, 78712, USA

    Vladimir Lifschitz

Authors
  1. Vladimir Lifschitz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Lifschitz, V. Two components of an action language. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence 21, 305–320 (1997). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1018973620715

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1018973620715

Keywords

Search

Navigation