Issue 97024 | Editor: Erik Sandewall | 19.11.1997 |
Today |
The discussion about action languages vs direct use of logic has prompted a contribution by Vladimir Lifschitz in today's issue.
Debates |
I would like to respond to some of the comments on action languages published in ENAI 13.11 and 17.11.
Tom Costello writes to Tony Kakas and Rob Miller regarding their new action language:
The reason I ask for truth
conditions for your propositions is that I cannot understand what the
intuitive consequences of a set of propositions should be, unless I
understand what the propositions say.
As you say, action languages are supposed to be "understandable and intuitive". Languages cannot be understood without semantics. |
Patrick Doherty writes:
The danger we find with the trend in using A language approaches is
that it often appears to be the case that one is taking a relatively
simple surface language and translating into what turns out to be
something along the lines of classical logic, but in a rather
indirect and complex manner.
On the other hand, if provided with well-understood and modular translations into classical logic, it is much easier to evaluate progress and simplify comparisons. |
Vladimir Lifschitz