G. Brewka and J. Hertzberg, How do things with worlds: On formalizing actions and plans. Journal of Logic and Computation, 3(5) (1993).  Home/Search   Document Not in Database   Summary   Related Articles   Check

....we proposed two different approaches, called the MCE and MCD respectively, to deal with the problem of updating knowledge bases with disjunctive information. In fact, the problem of dealing with the incomplete (disjunctive) information in dynamic systems has been studied by many researchers (e.g. [3, 6, 9, 12]) However, most of their work concentrated on reasoning about action. Restricted by the formalizations, their methods, therefore, seemed not directly applicable for knowledge base updates as we discussed in this paper. On the other hand, some of their approaches only dealt with the direct ....

....most of their work concentrated on reasoning about action. Restricted by the formalizations, their methods, therefore, seemed not directly applicable for knowledge base updates as we discussed in this paper. On the other hand, some of their approaches only dealt with the direct disjunctive effect [3]. Zhang and Foo did extend their work to deal with knowledge base updates [12] However, as their method is syntax based, there is no proper semantics to support their theory. There are some features of our approaches. First, our approaches can deal with both direct and indirect disjunctive ....

G. Brewka and J. Hertzberg, How do things with worlds: On formalizing actions and plans. Journal of Logic and Computation, 3(5) (1993).

....theories and prove the soundness and completeness of such translation relative to the semantics of the MCE. 1 Introduction Recent research has shown that traditional minimal change approaches, e.g. the PMA [9] are generally problematic for updating knowledge bases with disjunctive information [2, 5, 10]. In this paper, we propose an alternative approach called Minimal Change with Exceptions (MCE) to handle this problem. The MCE remains the minimal change criterion for updates generally but with exceptions to the disjunctive effect of updates. We show that the MCE still satisfies the standard ....

G. Brewka and J. Hertzberg, How do things with worlds: On formalizing actions and plans. Journal of Logic and Computation, 3(5) (1993) 517--532.

....It has been argued that to describe the indirect effect of actions properly, it is necessary to specify the causal relation of the domain explicitly. More recently, Brewka and Hertzberg, McCain and Turner, and Lin have independently developed alternative action theories to solve this problem [2,13,11]. In their action theories, causality is explicitly taken into account. In particular, both Brewka and Hertzberg s and McCain and Turner s approaches view causal relations as kinds of inference rules, while Lin s method employs a specific predicate Caused to represent causality in the ....

....have also used the notion of causality to formalize the effects of actions (e.g. 9] However, as pointed by Lin [11] most of them only considered the direct effects caused by actions. So their approaches did not represent the indirect effects of actions properly. Recently, Brewka and Hertzberg [2], McCain and Turner [13] and Lin [11] have independently proposed new theories of actions in which the domain causality was explicitly taken into account. In this section, we will specifically compare our approach with McCain and Turner s and Brewka and Hertzberg s approaches. We will also briefly ....

[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]

G. Brewka and J. Hertzberg, How do things with worlds: On formalizing actions and plans. Journal of Logic and Computation, 3(5) (1993) 517--532.

....exclusive interpretations for disjunctions in update (we will discuss this issue in section 2) In other words, it is also important to have inclusive interpretations for disjunctions in update under other situations. Various suggestions were proposed to overcome problems of the PMA, e.g. [1, 28, 3, 13]. These methods and theories, more or less, present some desired solutions to update with disjunctive information (or simply called disjunctive update) in some specific domains. Nevertheless, it is not clear yet how to characterize these variations of the PMA in terms of the minimal change ....

Brewka, G., and J. Hertzberg. 1993. How do things with worlds: On formalizing actions and plans. Journal of Logic and Computation, vol. 3, pp. 517-532.

....effect ontable(wine) ontable(water) i.e. P ost(act) j ontable(wine) ontable(water) Now consider an initial state 6 Note that this C 0 is different from the one defined in above theorems. 7 This example was due to Hudson Turner, who obtained it by elaborating an example described in [1] (personal communications with McCain in November 1995) S = f:ontable(wine) ontable(water) have(wine)g. The question is: after the action act is performed on S, how do we predict the possible resulting state(s) Using McCain and Turner s approach, there is a unique possible resulting ....

G. Brewka and J. Hertzberg, How do things with worlds: On formalizing actions and plans. Journal of Logic and Computation, 3(5) (1993).

.... in most formalizations of knowledge base updates (Baral 1994; Dalal 1988; Friedman Halpern 1994; Katsuno Mendelzon 1991a; Winslett 1988) However, recent research has revealed that such minimal change is usually inappropriate for representing knowledge change with disjunctive information (Brewka Hertzberg 1993; Kartha Lifschitz 1994; Zhang Foo 1995) This paper is concerned with the problem of updating knowledge bases with disjunctive information. In particular, we propose two different approaches to solve this problem one is called the minimal change with exceptions, the other is called the ....

....two different approaches, called the MCE and MCD respectively, to deal with the problem of updating knowledge bases with disjunctive information. In fact, the problem of dealing with the incomplete (disjunctive) information in dynamic systems has been studied by many researchers recently (e.g. (Brewka Hertzberg 1993; Kartha Lifschitz 1994; Lin 1996; Zhang Foo 1995) However, most of their work concentrated on reasoning about action. Restricted by the formalizations, their methods, therefore, seemed not directly applicable for general knowledge base updates as we discussed in this paper. On the other ....

[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]

Brewka, G., and Hertzberg, J. 1993. How do things with worlds: On formalizing actions and plans. Journal of Logic and Computation 3:517--532.

No context found.

Brewka, G., and J. Hertzberg. 1993. How do things with worlds: On formalizing actions and plans. Journal of Logic and Computation, vol. 3, pp. 517-532.

Online articles have much greater impact   More about CiteSeer.IST   Add search form to your site   Submit documents   Feedback  

CiteSeer.IST - Copyright Penn State and NEC