The Case for Durative Actions: A Commentary on PDDL2.1
Clicks: 27
ID: 282429
2011
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This
article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score —
reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
Reader Engagement
Popular Article
7.8
/100
27 views
9 readers
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
PopularRanked #733 of 803 articles by views in arXiv
Most read
Least read
Bar heights use a square-root scale. Only the 120 most-read articles are drawn; the journal has 803 in total.
Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet mintedCreate a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.
5
SUSD
one-off · no wallet required
Abstract
The addition of durative actions to PDDL2.1 sparked some controversy. Fox and
Long argued that actions should be considered as instantaneous, but can start
and stop processes. Ultimately, a limited notion of durative actions was
incorporated into the language. I argue that this notion is still impoverished,
and that the underlying philosophical position of regarding durative actions as
being a shorthand for a start action, process, and stop action ignores the
realities of modelling and execution for complex systems.
| Reference Key |
smith2011the
Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using
SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
|
|---|---|
| Authors | D. E. Smith |
| Journal | arXiv |
| Year | 2011 |
| DOI |
DOI not found
|
| URL | |
| Keywords |
Citations
No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org
Comments
No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.