Issue 98085 | Editor: Erik Sandewall | 22.12.1998 |
Today |
The article by Iliano Cervesato, Massimo Franceschet, and Angelo Montanari has now been accepted after reviewing and refereeing. Congratulations to the authors! We remember that the open review debate was quite thorough, with detailed questions by Paolo Liberatore, Peter Jonsson, and Rob Miller, and extensive answers by the authors. This is what most of all contributes to the quality processes of our journal - and to the public recognition and confidence in it.
In the present issue we also have a question by Chitta Baral to Hector Geffner, concerning some of his remarks in the discussion with David Poole about David's submitted article.
Also, Erik Sandewall has a few questions to Johan van Benthem, for his contribution to the discussion on ontologies of time.
This will be the last issue of the ENRAC for 1998. We have had a very interesting year, and many thanks to all who contributed articles and discussion items. The next issue will appear some time after January 10.
ETAI Publications |
Additional debate contributions have been received for the following article(s). Please click the title of the article to link to the interaction page, containing both new and old contributions to the discussion.
David Poole
Decision Theory, the Situation Calculus and Conditional Plans
Debates |
Dear Johan,
Thank you for your very insightful note for the discussion about ontologies of time. Here are a few questions on this topic.
b) Continuing (a): if we decide that Real Time is Good Enough for us, does the Dividing Instant problem then apply, or is it irrelevant?
The approach I suggested in the discussion, and for which I asked in vain for an explanation of why and where it would get into trouble, was to take the time domain as given (real numbers), to axiomatize the statements about the chronicle i.e. the events but not the time domain itself, and to obtain the models (plural, potentially) for those axioms. Then the undefinedness of some predicates at the dividing instants would be represented by having several models, but in each model each predicate would be either of true or false. I guess you could say that in this case the intended structure is a set of models, but did you intend that reading?