The case for durative actions: a commentary on PDDL2.1

Authors:
David E. Smith
Affiliations:
Computational Sciences Division, NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA
Venue:
Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research
Year:
2003

Citing 1
Cited 4

PDDL2.1: an extension to PDDL for expressing temporal planning domains

Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research

Modelling mixed discrete-continuous domains for planning

Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research
When is temporal planning really temporal?

IJCAI'07 Proceedings of the 20th international joint conference on Artifical intelligence
Towards creating assistive software by employing human behavior models

Journal of Ambient Intelligence and Smart Environments - A software engineering perspective on smart applications for AmI
A SAT-based approach to cost-sensitive temporally expressive planning

ACM Transactions on Intelligent Systems and Technology (TIST) - Special Section on Intelligent Mobile Knowledge Discovery and Management Systems and Special Issue on Social Web Mining

Quantified Score

Hi-index	0.00

Visualization

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.