ML Anthology

The Case for Durative Actions: A Commentary on PDDL2.1

David E. Smith
JAIR 2003 pp. 149-154
doi:10.1613/JAIR.1997 /jair/2003/smith2003jair-case/

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.

PDF JAIR Semantic Scholar

Cite

Text

Smith. "The Case for Durative Actions: A Commentary on PDDL2.1." Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 2003. doi:10.1613/JAIR.1997

Markdown

[Smith. "The Case for Durative Actions: A Commentary on PDDL2.1." Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 2003.](https://mlanthology.org/jair/2003/smith2003jair-case/) doi:10.1613/JAIR.1997

BibTeX

@article{smith2003jair-case,
  title     = {{The Case for Durative Actions: A Commentary on PDDL2.1}},
  author    = {Smith, David E.},
  journal   = {Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research},
  year      = {2003},
  pages     = {149-154},
  doi       = {10.1613/JAIR.1997},
  volume    = {20},
  url       = {https://mlanthology.org/jair/2003/smith2003jair-case/}
}