|
| Moderated by Erik Sandewall. |
Patrick Doherty, Joakim Gustafsson, Lars Karlsson, and Jonas KvarnströmTAL: Temporal Action Logics Language
|
The
article
mentioned above has been submitted to the Electronic
Transactions on Artificial Intelligence, and the present page
contains the review discussion. Click here for
more
explanations and for the webpage of theauthors: Patrick Doherty, Joakim Gustafsson, Lars Karlsson, and Jonas Kvarnström.
Overview of interactions
Q1. Anonymous Referee 1 (12.6.1999):
1. Does the article represent a tradition or "approach" where there is already a sufficient volume of work in the field? Yes. 2. Does the article concisely specify the assumptions, motivations, and notations used in that approach? Does it correctly capture the assumptions, etc. that have been used and are being used? Yes. Note, however, that these notations etc. are fairly complex. 3. Would reading the present article enable one to skip the introductory definitions section of many previously published articles that used the approach? Yes. However, the length of the article (32 pages) makes it unlikely that the same text would ever have been included as a part of another article. 4. Is the article also concise in the sense that it does not contain a lot of material that is unnecessary for the above criteria? One would hope that it is sometimes possible to make do with a shorter introduction to the approach than this one. An article giving a full account of the approach couldn't have been much shorter, however. 5. Is the article pedagogical and sufficiently easy to read, but at the same time precise and correct? Yes. Q2. Anonymous Referee 2 (12.6.1999):
I suggest to accept the article. Here is how I feel it conforms to the various criteria for reference articles: 1. Does the article represent a tradition or "approach" where there is already a sufficient volume of work in the field? Yes, as is also shown in the article. Moreover it is a very active approach, with a rapidly growing volume of work. 2. Does the article concisely specify the assumptions, motivations, and notations used in that approach? Does it correctly capture the assumptions, etc. that have been used and are being used? Yes concerning assumptions and notations. The article gives a very clear specification of TAL and in addition a nice "user manual". Motivations for the types of language statements and an explanation how the logics deal with the frame/qualification/ramification problems could be more elaborate: in this respect the article relies heavily on e.g. "Features and Fluents". However, I suppose it is acceptable for the article to rely on what the authors call its companion article (reference [29], on Cognitive Robotics Logic, by Erik Sandewall). 3. Would reading the present article enable one to skip the introductory definitions section of many previously published articles that used the approach? Yes, under the same assumption as above. 4. Is the article also concise in the sense that it does not contain a lot of material that is unnecessary for the above criteria? Yes. 5. Is the article pedagogical and sufficiently easy to read, but at the same time precise and correct? Yes. |