PDDL2.1 - The Art of the Possible? Commentary on Fox and Long
Abstract
PDDL2.1 was designed to push the envelope of what planning algorithms can do, and it has succeeded. It adds two important features: durative actions, which take time (and may have continuous effects); and objective functions for measuring the quality of plans. The concept of durative actions is flawed; and the treatment of their semantics reveals too strong an attachment to the way many contemporary planners work. Future PDDL innovators should focus on producing a clean semantics for additions to the language, and let planner implementers worry about coupling their algorithms to problems expressed in the latest version of the language.
Cite
Text
McDermott. "PDDL2.1 - The Art of the Possible? Commentary on Fox and Long." Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 2003. doi:10.1613/JAIR.1996Markdown
[McDermott. "PDDL2.1 - The Art of the Possible? Commentary on Fox and Long." Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 2003.](https://mlanthology.org/jair/2003/mcdermott2003jair-pddl2/) doi:10.1613/JAIR.1996BibTeX
@article{mcdermott2003jair-pddl2,
title = {{PDDL2.1 - The Art of the Possible? Commentary on Fox and Long}},
author = {McDermott, Drew V.},
journal = {Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research},
year = {2003},
pages = {145-148},
doi = {10.1613/JAIR.1996},
volume = {20},
url = {https://mlanthology.org/jair/2003/mcdermott2003jair-pddl2/}
}