LiU Electronic Press
Full-text not available in DiVA
Author:
Doherty, Patrick (Linköping University, The Institute of Technology) (Linköping University, Department of Computer and Information Science, KPLAB - Knowledge Processing Lab)
Kvarnström, Jonas (Linköping University, The Institute of Technology) (Linköping University, Department of Computer and Information Science, KPLAB - Knowledge Processing Lab)
Title:
Temporal Action Logics
Department:
Linköping University, Department of Computer and Information Science, KPLAB - Knowledge Processing Lab
Linköping University, The Institute of Technology
Publication type:
Chapter in book (Other academic)
Language:
English
In:
Handbook of Knowledge Representation
Editor:
V. Lifschitz, F. van Harmelen, and F. Porter
Publisher: Elsevier
Series:
Foundations of Artificial Intelligence, ISSN 1574-6526; 3
Pages:
709-757
Year of publ.:
2009
URI:
urn:nbn:se:liu:diva-36785
Permanent link:
http://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:liu:diva-36785
ISBN:
978-0-444-52211-5
Local ID:
32585
Subject category:
Computer Science
SVEP category:
Computer science
Abstract(en) :

The study of frameworks and formalisms for reasoning about action and change [67, 58, 61, 65, 70, 3, 57] has been central to the knowledge representation field almost from the inception of Artificial Intelligence as a general field of research [52, 56].  The phrase “Temporal Action Logics” represents a class of logics for reasoning about action and change that evolved from Sandewall’s book on Features and Fluents [61] and owes much to this ambitious project. There are essentially three major parts to Sandewall’s work. He first developed a narrative-based logical framework for specifying agent behavior in terms of action scenarios. The logical framework is state-based and uses explicit time structures. He then developed a formal framework for assessing the correctness (soundness and completeness) of logics for reasoning about action and change relative to a set of well-defined intended conclusions, where reasoning problems were classified according to their ontological or epistemological characteristics.  Finally, he proposed a number of logics defined semantically in terms of definitions of preferential entailment1 and assessed their correctness using his assessment framework.

Available from:
2009-10-10
Created:
2009-10-10
Last updated:
2013-08-29
Statistics:
38 hits