Hostname: page-component-89b8bd64d-dvtzq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-09T14:22:10.998Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Planning domain definition using GIPO

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 June 2007

R. M. SIMPSON ,
D. E. KITCHIN  and
T. L. McCLUSKEY
R. M. SIMPSON
Affiliation:
School of Computing and Engineering, The University of Huddersfield, Huddersfield HD1 3DH, UK; e-mail: r.m.simpson@hud.ac.uk
D. E. KITCHIN
Affiliation:
School of Computing and Engineering, The University of Huddersfield, Huddersfield HD1 3DH, UK; e-mail: r.m.simpson@hud.ac.uk
T. L. McCLUSKEY
Affiliation:
School of Computing and Engineering, The University of Huddersfield, Huddersfield HD1 3DH, UK; e-mail: r.m.simpson@hud.ac.uk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In this paper an object-centric perspective on planning domain definition is presented along with an overview of GIPO (graphical interface for planning with objects), a supporting tools environment. It is argued that the object-centric view assists the domain developer in conceptualizing the domain’s structure, and we show how GIPO enables the developer to capture that conceptualization at an appropriate and matching conceptual level. GIPO is an experimental environment which provides a platform for exploring and demonstrating the range and scope of tools required to support the knowledge engineering aspects of creating and validating planning systems, both for classical pre-condition planning and hierarchical planning. GIPO embodies the object-centric view, leading to a range of benefits typically associated with object-oriented methods in other fields of software engineering such as highly visual development methods, code reuse and efficient, reliable development.

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Backstrom, C. and Nebel, B. 1995 Complexity results for sas+ planning. Computational Intelligence 11(4), 625–656.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blythe, J., Kim, J., Ramachandran, S., Gil, Y. 2001 An integrated environment for knowledge acquisition. Proceedings of the Interenational Conference on User Interfaces. ACM Press.Google Scholar
Edelkamp, S. and Mehler, T. 2005 Knowledge acquisition and knowledge engineering in the ModPlan workbench. InProceedings of the First International Competition on Knowledge Engineering for AI Planning, Monterey, California, USA.Google Scholar
Fikes, RE., and Nilsson, NJ. 1971 STRIPS: A new approach to the application of theorem proving to problem solving. Artificial Intelligence 2, 189–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fox, M., and Long, D. 1997 The automatic inference of state invariants in TIM. JAIR 9, 367–421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fox, M.,  and Long, D. 2001 PDDL2.1: an extension to PDDL for expressing temporal planning domains. In Technical Report, Dept of Computer Science, University of Durham.Google Scholar
Garagnani, M. 2004 A framework for planning with hybrid models. In Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Automated Planning and Scheduling Workshop on Connecting Planning Theory with Practice.Google Scholar
Gennari, JH., Musen, MA., Fergerson, RW., Grosso, WE., Crubezy, M., Eriksson, H., Noy, NF. and Tu, SW. 2003 The evolution of protege: an environment for knowledge-based systems development. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 58, 89–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gerevini, A. and Serina, I. 2002 LPG: a planner based on local search for planning graphs. In The Sixth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence Planning Systems. AAAI.Google Scholar
Ghallab, M., Howe, A., Knoblock, C., McDermott, D., Ram, A., Veloso, M., Weld, D., and Wilkins, D. 1998 Pddl — the planning domain definition language. Technical Report CVC TR-98-003/DCS TR-1165, Yale Center for Computational Vision and Control.Google Scholar
Ghallab, M., Nau, D. and Traverso, P. 2004 Automated Planning: Theory and Practice. CA, USA: Morgan Kaufmann ISBN 1-55860-856-7.Google Scholar
Hoffmann, J. 2000 A heuristic for domain independent planning and its use in an enforced hill-climbing algorithm. In Proceedings of the 14th Workshop on Planning and Configuration—New Results in Planning, Scheduling and Design.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Manzano, M. 1993 Introduction to many sorted logic. In Meinke, K. and Tucker, J., (ed.), Many Sorted Logic and Its Applications. New York, NY, USA: Wiley pp. 3–81.Google Scholar
McCluskey, TL. and Kitchin, DE. 1998 A tool-supported approach to engineering HTN planning models. In Proceedings of 10th IEEE International Conference on Tools with Artificial Intelligence. IEEE Press.Google Scholar
McCluskey, TL. and Porteous, JM. 1997 Engineering and compiling planning domain models to promote validity and efficiency. Artificial Intelligence 95, 1–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCluskey, TL. and Simpson, RM. 2005 The use of an integrated tool to support teaching and learning in artificial intelligence. Journal of Innovations in Teaching And Learning in Information and Computer Sciences: Special Issue on Teaching Artificial Intelligence and Intelligent Agents: Challenges and Perspectives 4(3).Google Scholar
McCluskey, TL., Kitchin, DE., and Porteous, JM. 1996 Object-centred planning: lifting classical planning from the literal level to the object level. In Proceedings of 8th IEEE International Conference on Tools with Artificial Intelligence. IEEE Press.Google Scholar
McCluskey, TL., Richardson, NE. and Simpson, RM. 2002 An interactive method for inducing operator descriptions. In The 6th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence Planning and Scheduling. AAAI.Google Scholar
McCluskey, TL., Liu, D. and Simpson, RM. 2003 GIPO II: HTN planning in a tool-supported knowledge engineering environment. In The 13th International Conference on Automated Planning and Scheduling. AAAI.Google Scholar
Nau, D., Cao, Y., Lotem, A. and Munoz-Avila, H. 1999 SHOP: simple hierarchical ordered planner. In Proceedings of the 16th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence. CA, USA: Morgan Kaufmann.Google Scholar
Nebel, B. 2000 On the compilability and expressive power of propositional planning formalisms. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research 12, 271–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simpson, RM., McCluskey, TL., Liu, D. and Kitchin, DE. 2000 Knowledge representation in planning: A PDDL to OCLh translation. In Proceedings of the 12th International Symposium on Methodologies for Intelligent Systems. London: Springer Verlag.Google Scholar
Tate, A., Drabble, B. and Kirby, R. 1994 O-Plan2: an open architecture for command, planning and control. In Fox, M. and Zweben, M., (ed). Intelligent Scheduling. Palo Alto, CA, USA: Morgan Kaufmann.Google Scholar
Tate, A., Dalton, J., LevineJ., J.,Polyak, S. and Wickler, G. 2005 O-plan - open planning architecture. www.aiai.ed.ac.uk/oplan.Google Scholar
Vacquero, TS., Tonidanel, F. and Silva, JR. 2005 The itSIMPLE tool for modelling planning domains. In Proceedings of the First International Competition on Knowledge Engineering for AI Planning, Monterey, California, USA.Google Scholar
Wilkins, D. 1999 Using the SIPE-2 planning system: a manual for SIPE-2, version5.0. SRI International, Artificial Intelligence Center.Google Scholar
Wilkins, D. 2000 SIPE-2: System for interactive planning and execution. www.ai.sri.com/sipe.Google Scholar