Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A survey of imperatives and action representation formalisms

  • Published:
Artificial Intelligence Review Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Representation and reasoning of actions is a wide spread area in the domain of Artificial Intelligence. The representation involves natural language instructions, which are based on the linguistic concepts and the reasoning methodology deals with the logical structures. In the computational domain, several theories pertaining to the state-space approach have been proposed to represent and reason out actions. Considering these aspects, this paper provides an account of work from the viewpoint of linguistics, logic and action representation formalisms. Based on this study, this paper then proposes a seven axes categorization scheme, that can be used to compare and analyze different theories.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. A syllogism is a logical argument, where a proposition is inferred from two or more propositions, called as premises.

  2. The three statements “It is obligatory that Smith not murder Jones”, “It is obligatory, that, if Smith murders Jones, Smith murder Jones gently” and “Smith murders Jones” according to Standard Deontic Logic are contradictory (Forrester 1984).

References

  • Austin J (1962) How to do things with words. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Babawuro U, Beiji Z (2011) Knowledge representation: a general survey and techniques for sound knowledge based systems. Int J Intell Inf Process 2(4):16–22

  • Beardsley EL (1944) Imperative sentences in relation to indicatives. Philos Rev 53(2):175–185

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brachman RJ, Levesque HJ (eds) (1985) Readings in knowledge representation. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc., San Francisco

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Charlow N (2014) Logic and semantics for imperatives. J Philos Log 43(4):617–664

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Ciabattoni A, Freschi E, Genco FA, Lellmann B (2015) Mīmāmsā deontic logic: proof theory and applications. In: Automated reasoning with analytic tableaux and related methods—24th international conference, TABLEAUX 2015, Wrocław, Poland, September 21–24, 2015. Proceedings, pp 323–338

  • Cohen PR, Levesque HJ (1990) Intention is choice with commitment. Artif Intell 42(2–3):213–261

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Condoravdi C, Lauer S (2011) Imperatives: meaning and illocutionary force. In: Empirical issues in syntax and semantics 8, to appear, invited talk at Colloque de Syntaxe et Semantique a Paris

  • Dixon L, Smaill A, Bundy A (2009a) Verified planning by deductive synthesis in intuitionistic linear logic. In: Proceedings of VVPS’09, p 10

  • Dixon L, Smaill A, Tsang T (2009b) Plans, actions and dialogue using linear logic. J Log Lang Inform 18(2):48

  • Dovier A, Formisano A, Pontelli E (2011) Perspectives on logic-based approaches for reasoning about actions and change. In: Balduccini M, Son TC (eds) Logic programming, knowledge representation, and nonmonotonic reasoning: essays dedicated to Michael Gelfond on the occasion of his 65th birthday. Springer, Berlin, pp 259–279

  • Dzifcak J, Scheutz M, Baral C, Schermerhorn PW (2009) What to do and how to do it: translating natural language directives into temporal and dynamic logic representation for goal management and action execution. In: ICRA, pp 4163–4168

  • Eugenio BD (1998) An action representation formalism to interpret natural language instructions. Comput Intell 14(1):89–133

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fikes RE, Nilsson NJ (1971) STRIPS: a new approach to the application of theorem proving to problem solving. In: Proceedings of the 2nd international joint conference on artificial intelligence, London, pp 608–620

  • Fischer MJ, Ladner RE (1979) Propositional dynamic logic of regular programs. J Comput Syst Sci 18(2):194–211

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Forrester J (1984) Gentle murder, or the adverbial samaritan. J Philos 81:193–197

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Fox C (2008) Imperatives: a logic of satisfaction. http://chris.foxearth.org/papers/C-Fox-Satisfaction-2008.pdf

  • Fox C (2012) Imperatives: a judgemental analysis. Stud Log 100(4):879–905

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Geach PT (1958) Imperative and deontic logic. Analysis 18(3):49–56

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Girard J-Y (1987) Linear logic. Theor Comput Sci 50:1–102

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Goddard IW (2008) A logic and semantics for imperatives. Noesis 187:9–19

    Google Scholar 

  • Hamblin C (1987) Imperatives. Basil Blackwell, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Hansen J (2008) Is there a logic of imperatives. In: Deontic Logic in Computer Science, Twentieth Europeon summer school in Logic, Language and Information, Germany

  • Hansen J (2014) Be nice! how simple imperatives simplify imperative logic. J Philos Log 43(5):965–977

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Hare RM (1967) Some alleged differences between imperatives and indicatives. Mind LXXV I(303):309–326

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hofstadter A, McKinsey J (1939) On the logic of imperatives. Philos Sci 6(4):446–457

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hunter A, Liu W (2010) A survey of formalisms for representing and reasoning with scientific knowledge. Knowl Eng Rev 25(02):199–222

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jorgensen J (1937) Imperatives and logic. Erkenntnis 7:288–296

    Google Scholar 

  • Kenny AJ (1966) Practical inference. Analysis 26:76–79

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kowalski R, Sergot M (1986) A logic-based calculus of events. New Gen Comput 4:67–95

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Kungas P (2002). Linear logic theorem proving with abstraction. In: Proceedings of 14th European Summer School in Logic, Language and Information, Trento, Italy

  • Lee H, Tannock J, Williams JS (1993) Logic-based reasoning about actions and plans in artificial intelligence. Knowl Eng Rev 8(2):91–120

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lewis DK (1969) Convention: a philosophical study. Blackwell, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Manas EL (2010) STRIPS and ADL. In: Seminar selected topics on specifying intelligent agents, im Sommersemester. Available from: http://www.lopez-manas.com/downloads/SeminarPaper_ELM_ADL_AND_STRIPS.pdf

  • McCarthy J, Hayes PJ (1969) Some philosophical problems from the standpoint of artificial intelligence. In: Meltzer B, Michie D (eds) Machine intelligence, vol 4, pp 463–502. Edinburgh University Press. reprinted in McC90

  • Patkos T (2010) A formal theory for reasoning about action, knowledge and time. PhD thesis, A thesis submitted to University of Crete-Heraklion, Greece

  • Pednault EPD (1989) ADL: exploring the middle ground between STRIPS and the situation calculus. In: Proceedings of the first international conference on principles of knowledge representation and reasoning. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc, San Francisco, pp 324–332

  • Perez-Ramirez M, Fox C (2003a) An axiomatisation of imperatives using hoare logic. In Proceedings of the fifth international workshop on computational semantics, ICWS

    Google Scholar 

  • Perez-Ramirez M, Fox C (2003b) Imperatives as obligatory and permitted actions. In: Proceedings of the fourth international conference on intelligent text processing and computational linguistics. CI-CLing

  • Pratt VR (1976) Semantical considerations on floyd-hoare logic. In: Proceedings of the 17th symposium on foundations of computer science, IEEE. pp 109–121

  • Reiter R (2001) Knowledge in action: logical foundations for specifying and implementing dynamical systems. The frame problem and the situation calculus. MIT Press, Cambridge

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Rescher N (1966) The logic of commands Monographs in modern logic. Routledge & K. Paul, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Rich E (2010) Artificial intelligence, 3rd edn. Tata McGraw-Hill Publishing Company Limited, New Delhi

    Google Scholar 

  • Ross A (1941) Imperatives and logic. Theoria 7:53–71

    Google Scholar 

  • Russell P, Norvig P (2009) Artificial intelligence: a modern approach, 2nd edn. Pearson Education, New York

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Searle J (1976) A classification of illocutionary acts. Lang Soc 5(1976):1–23

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Segerberg K (1990) Validity and satisfaction in imperative logic. Notre Dame J Formal Log 31(2):203–221

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Shanahan M, Bz LS (1995) A circumscriptive calculus of events. Artif Intell 77:249–284

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Sosa E (1966) The logic of imperatives1. Theoria 32(3):224–235

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sosa E (1967) The semantics of imperatives. Am Philos Q 4(1):57–64

    Google Scholar 

  • Srinivasan B (2014) Mīmāmsā inspired representation of actions (MIRA). PhD thesis, A thesis submitted to Anna University, India

  • Srinivasan B, Parthasarathi R (2012) A formalism for action representation inspired by mīmāsā. J Intell Syst 21(1):45–77

    Google Scholar 

  • Srinivasan B, Parthasarathi R (2013) An intelligent task analysis approach for special education based on mira. J Appl Log 11(1):137–145

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Thielscher M (2011) A unifying action calculus. Artif Intell 175:120–141

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Trentelman K (2009) Survey of knowledge representation and reasoning systems. Technical report, DTIC Document

    Google Scholar 

  • van Benthem J, van Ditmarsch H, van Eijck J, Jaspars J (2012) Logic in action. http://www.logicinaction.org/docs/lia.pdf

  • van Eijck J (2000) Making things happen. Stud Log 66(1):41–58

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • van Harmelen F, van Harmelen F, Lifschitz V, Porter B (2007) Handbook of knowledge representation. Elsevier Science, San Diego

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • von Wright GH (1971) Norm and action: a logical enquiry, 1st edn. Routledge & Kegan Paul PLC, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Vranas P (2008) New foundation for imperative logic i: logical connectives, consistency and quantifiers. Nous 42:529–572

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Vranas PB (2011) New foundations for imperative logic: pure imperative reference. Mind 120(478):369–446

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vranas PB (2014) Natural deduction for imperative logic i: sentential pure imperative logic. In: 12th International conference on deontic logic and normative systems, Belgium

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Information Science and Technology, Anna University, CEG Campus, Chennai, 600 025, India

    Bama Srinivasan & Ranjani Parthasarathi

Authors
  1. Bama Srinivasan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ranjani Parthasarathi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Bama Srinivasan.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Srinivasan, B., Parthasarathi, R. A survey of imperatives and action representation formalisms. Artif Intell Rev 48, 263–297 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10462-016-9501-y

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10462-016-9501-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation