You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Running the planner with the current pddl formulation for SUAVEsuave takes around 0.5 seconds. I believe this can be improved with a better typing system by adding specialized types for the objects, e.g., fd_recover_thrusters - function_design and so on.
Also, PlanSys is taking very long to solve all the derived predicates (around 30 seconds) due to my poor implementation of supporting existential preconditions and derived predicates. I believe this could be greatly improved if objects and constants had more specialized types that are not subtypes of each other, i.e., part of another type hierarchy.
@tobiaswjohn do you think you could do such modifications the owl->pddl tool?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
technically, it is not a big problem to introduce such types. BUT
this results in not interpreting the axioms in the ontology as usual, i.e. we use OWL as a modelling language without using the OWL interpretation. I've seen this a couple of times and I think it makes it really hard for others to understand what we do.
I propose to focus on removing the unnecessary derived predicates (i.e. most of them) first (see issue #19) and see what the difference is before adding more types is a non-owl-conformant way.
Running the planner with the current pddl formulation for SUAVEsuave takes around 0.5 seconds. I believe this can be improved with a better typing system by adding specialized types for the objects, e.g.,
fd_recover_thrusters - function_design
and so on.Also, PlanSys is taking very long to solve all the derived predicates (around 30 seconds) due to my poor implementation of supporting existential preconditions and derived predicates. I believe this could be greatly improved if objects and constants had more specialized types that are not subtypes of each other, i.e., part of another type hierarchy.
@tobiaswjohn do you think you could do such modifications the owl->pddl tool?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: