|
|
|
|
New to DAML |
|
Reviewed current proposals for temporal
ontologies |
|
Prior work on temporal reasoning: |
|
Allen (1983): Interval Temporal Logic |
|
Allen and Pelavin (1986): Logic of
Plans in Temporally Rich Domains |
|
Allen and Koomen (1989): Planning with
a Temporal World Model |
|
Allen, Kautz, Pelavin, and Tenenberg
(1991): Reasoning about Plans |
|
Ferguson (1994): KR&R for
Mixed-Initiative Planning |
|
Allen and Ferguson (1994): Reasoning
about Actions and Events |
|
Allen, et al. (1993-1997): TRAINS
dialogue-based planning systems |
|
Allen, et al. (1998-present): TRIPS:
The Rochester Interactive Planning System |
|
|
|
|
|
Develop practical temporal ontology in
DAML |
|
Abstracted from natural language |
|
Dates: “January 3, 2002,” “next
Wednesday,” … |
|
Durations: “drive for twenty minutes,”
“wait about an hour,” … |
|
Ordering: “the foundation must be
completed before the walls are started,” … |
|
Constraints: “don’t touch the button
while the switch is on,” “only one flight can use the runway at a time,” ... |
|
Based on Interval Temporal Logic
(Allen, 1983) |
|
Solid theoretical foundation |
|
Extensively investigated in the KR
literature |
|
Applied to real-world planning and
scheduling problems and natural language applications |
|
|
|
|
|
Subjective: |
|
Usability: Whether people can use the
ontology, how comfortable they are using it, etc. |
|
Measure via end-user questionaires and
interviews |
|
Although subjective, this is still an
important measure |
|
Objective: |
|
Coverage: What proportion of the
end-users’ data can be represented using the ontology? |
|
Reliability: How likely are different
end-users of the ontology to to encode the same information using the same
terms? |
|
For both of these, need multiple
end-users encoding the same information to allow comparison |
|
Inter-encoder reliability seems
particularly important |