Compiling ramification constraints into effect axioms

Computational Intelligence

Volumn 15, Issue 3, 1999, Pages 280-307

  Pinto, Javier ^a  

^a PONTIFICIA UNIVERSIDAD CATÓLICA DE CHILE   (Chile)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE; COMPUTATIONAL METHODS; CONSTRAINT THEORY; DIFFERENTIATION (CALCULUS);

INTEGRITY CONSTRAINT; RAMIFICATION STATE CONSTRAINTS; SITUATION CALCULUS;

PROBLEM SOLVING;

EID: 0032599449     PISSN: 08247935     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/0824-7935.00094     Document Type: Article

References (38)

1. BERTOSSI, L., J. PINTO, P. SAEZ, D. KAPUR, and M. SUBRAMANIAM. 1996. Automating proofs of integrity constraints in situation calculus. In Proceedings of the 9th International Symposium on Methodologies for Intelligent Systems. Edited by Z. Pawlak and Z. W. Ras. Springer-Verlag, pp. 212-222.
2. CHANDRA, A., and D. HAREL. 1985. Horn clause queries and generalizations. Journal of Logic Programming, 2(1):1-5.
3. DECKER, H. 1996. An extension of sld by abduction and integrity maintenance for view updating in deductive databases. In Joint International Conference and Symposium on Logic Programming.
4. FINGER, J. 1986. Exploiting constraints in design synthesis. Ph.D. thesis, Department of Computer Science, Stanford University.
5. GINSBERG, M. L., and D. E. Smith. 1988a. Reasoning about actions I: A possible worlds approach. Artificial Intelligence, 35(2):165-195.
6. GINSBERG, M. L., and D. E. Smith. 1988b. Reasoning about actions II: The qualification problem. Artificial Intelligence, 35(3):311-342.
7. HAAS, A. R. 1987. The case for domain-specific frame axioms. In The Frame Problem in Artificial Intelligence, Proceedings of the 1987 Workshop, Los Altos. Edited by F. M. Brown. Morgan Kaufmann, San Mateo, CA, pp. 343-348.
8. th VLDB Conference, Brisbane, pp. 650-661.
9. KAPUR, D., and H. ZHANG. 1988. RRL: A rewrite rule laboratory. In Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference on Automated Deduction (CADE-9), LNCS 310. Springer-Verlag.
10. KEAN, A., and G. TSIKNIS. 1990. An incremental method for generating prime implicants/implicates. Journal of Symbolic Computation, 9:185-206.
11. KEAN, A., and G. TSIKNIS. 1993. Clause management systems. Computational Intelligence, 9(1):11-40.
12. LIFSCHITZ, V. 1987. Formal theories of action. In The Frame Problem in Artificial Intelligence, Los Altos. Edited by F. M. Brown. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, San Mateo, CA, pp. 35-57.
13. LIN, F. 1995. Embracing causality in specifying the indirect effects of actions. In Proceedings of the International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Montreal. Morgan Kaufmann, San Mateo, CA, pp. 1985-1991.
14. LIN, F. 1996. Embracing causality in specifying the indeterminate effects of actions. In Proceedings of the National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI-96).
15. LIN, F., and R. REITER. 1994. State constraints revisited. Journal of Logic and Computation, 4(5):655-678 (Special issue on Actions and Processes).
16. LIN, F., and Y. SHOHAM. 1991. Provably correct theories of action (preliminary report). In Proceedings of the Ninth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI-91), pp. 349-354.
17. LIN, F., and Y. SHOHAM. 1992. Provably correct theories of action. Technical report, University of Toronto.
18. MCCAIN, N., and H. TURNER. 1995. A causal theory of ramifications and qualifications. In Proceedings of the International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI-95).
19. MCCARTHY, J. 1968. Programs with common sense. In Semantic Information Processing. Edited by M. Minsky. The MIT Press, pp. 403-418.
20. MCCARTHY, J., and P. J. HAYES. 1969. Some philosophical problems from the standpoint of artificial intelligence. In Machine Intelligence, vol. 4. Edited by B. Meltzer and D. Michie. Edinburgh University Press, Scotland, pp. 463-502.
21. MCILRAITH, S. A. 1997. Representing actions and state constraints in model-based diagnosis. In Proceedings of the National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI-97), pp. 43-49.
22. PEDNAULT, E. 1988. Synthesizing plans that contain actions with context-dependent effects. Computational Intelligence, 4:356-372.
23. PINTO, J. 1994. Temporal reasoning in the situation calculus. Ph.D. thesis, Department of Computer Science, University of Toronto. URL = ftp://ftp.cs.toronto.edu/~cogrobo/jpThesis.ps.Z.
24. PINTO, J. 1998a. Causality in theories of action. In Fourth Symposium on Logical Formalizations of Commonsense Reasoning. Edited by R. Miller and M. Shanahan. Queen Mary and Westfield College, London, U.K. URL = http://www.ida.liu.se/ext/etai/nj/fcs-98/listing.html.
25. PINTO, J. 1998b. Causality, indirect effects and triggers (Preliminary report). In Seventh International Workshop on Non-monotonic Reasoning.
26. PINTO, J. 1998c. Occurrences and narratives as constraints in the branching structure of the situation calculus. Journal of Logic and Computation, 8:777-808.
27. PINTO, J. 1998d. Using histories to model observations in theories of action. In Learning and Reasoning with Complex Representations. Edited by G. Antoniou and M. Truszczynski. Springer-Verlag, pp. 223-235.
28. PRZYMUSINSKI, T. C. 1987. On the declarative semantics of deductive databases and logic programs. In Foundations of Deductive Databases and Logic Programming. Edited by J. Minker. Morgan Kaufmann, San Mateo, CA, pp. 193-216.
29. REITER, R. 1991. The frame problem in the situation calculus: A simple solution (sometimes) and a completeness result for goal regression. In Artificial Intelligence and Mathematical Theory of Computation: Papers in Honor of John McCarthy. Academic Press, San Diego, pp. 359-380.
30. REITER, R. 1992. On specifying database updates. Technical report KRR-TR-92-3, University of Toronto.
31. REITER, R. 1993. Proving properties of states in the situation calculus. Artificial Intelligence, 64(2):337-351.
32. SCHUBERT, L. 1990. Monotonic solution of the frame problem in the situation calculus: An efficient method for worlds with fully specified actions. In Knowledge Representation and Defeasible Reasoning. Edited by H. E. Kyberg, R. Loui, and G. Carlson. Kluwer Academic Press, pp. 23-67.
33. SHAPIRO, S. 1993. First-order solutions to the frame problem. Master's thesis, University of Toronto.
34. SHOHAM, Y. 1988. Reasoning about Change. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
35. THIELSCHER, M. 1997. Ramification and causality. Artificial Intelligence, 89:317-364.
36. WALLACE, M. 1991. Compiling integrity checking into update procedures. In Proceedings of the International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI-91).
37. WIDOM, J., and S. CERI. 1996. Active Database Systems, Triggers and Rules for Advanced Database Processing. Morgan Kaufmann, San Mateo, CA.
38. WINSLETT, M. 1988. Reasoning about action using a possible models approach. In Proceedings of the Seventh National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI-88), pp. 89-93.