Part of the DARPA/Air Force Research Laboratory (Rome) Planning Initiative (ARPI)
Objectives defined by Tom Garvey, Doug Dyer, Nort
Fowler and Rick Metzger
From Nort Fowler:
The driving need is to achieve a practical balance (as in one that will actually be applied in DARPA and AFRL sponsored systems development) between coverage, adequate expressiveness and reasonable computational efficiency. ARPI has a long history of wandering around in this space, often simultaneously by several subgroups. The intent is that the common plan representation will actually be useful and used by many, including IFD and ATD builders. The first step is to propose some solid core as version 1, and release it to get banged upon by wildly divergent communities.
There are many facets to the plan representation, of course, and many of these (e.g. uncertainty and temporal reasoning) have themselves not solved the problem by achieving consensus on the right balance in a representation for just their specialty. So we are not intending to resolve all the deep representational issues of the larger, combined space, a mistake we've made before. Rather, the goal is to get something that's practical, but under which we feel there is a reasonable foundation, and not just "ad hocery", as in the past (e.g. IFD-3). The long term goal is to grow this appropriately, as the various specialities resolve their own representational issues, while trying to maintain the practical balance above.
From Tom Garvey:
A core group would have responsibility for defining the representation. They would do this by combining their own viewpoints with those expressed by "experts," representatives of both technical disciplines and users (this second group is not intended to be "implementers", especially not implementers of the common plan representation). The first meeting of the core group would be to flesh out the methodology and define the set of operating requirements.
The result of this meeting would be a set of questions that would guide the presenters at the next meeting. These questions would characterize the desiderata for our representation, that is the set of things we want to do with it and that we want it to be able to support. They would encompass both expressiveness and performance requirements.
The results of the defining meeting would be used to shape the presentations we will be requesting from the experts at the second meeting. In the second meeting the experts would brief the core panel wrt needs that their discipline or interest would impose on the representation as well as representational formalisms that could support their requirements.
The core group will synthesize the collective view, create a strawman representation and publish it for comments. Following a period for comments, a more final version will be defined and implementations started.
We would like a brief overview of the project and progress in the ARPI meeting in San Francisco in November 1997.
From Tom Garvey:
What I am aiming for here is a plan representation that will support -- efficiently -- the needs of the application/system programs while providing an expressive enough representation that our technology-base programs will be able to use it and to plug into future demos with a minimum of heartache.
This is the reason that I want to make sure we cover all the key users and contributors to planning and plan management systems. Without a common, shared plan representation that is both expressive and utile (if that's a word - my spelling checker, presciently, perhaps, tried to change it to 'futile'), I am very pessimistic about ever transitioning our technology to the programs that could benefit from it.
Lists of Requirements
From Tom Garvey:
I'd like to ask you all to begin assembling a list of the desiderata for the representation that define what we hope to be able to do with it, what it will have to be able to represent, and what attributes it will need to have. My entries include the following:
I think we need to make a global list of this type of requirement that we can discuss, make sensible, prune, and prioritize for implementation.
From Adam Pease:
(speaking as a hypothetical user)...
I'd like a plan representation to:
Stuart Moralee of Unilever has kindly provided me with his writeup of a 3 day workshop help at IBM in Nottingham, UK in April 1994. This was a meeting of the UK Enterprise Project partners to discuss the enterprise ontology for the project and to look in particular at existing ontologies and their potential contribution. The Enterprise project partners were Unilever, IBM, Logica, Lloyd's Register and AIAI. More information is available here.
The important part is the tables showing contributing ontologies and the list of ontology elements that the participants of the workshop felt the various contributions were particularily strong in. Take a look at the tables of contributions from the various ontological efforts like KADS, TOVE, ACT, KRSL, O-Plan TF, ORDIT, etc. It also lists required elements for an enterprise ontology as required for the Enterprise project.
Classification of Objectives
Steve Polyak provides a classified list of requirements at:
|ARPI Home Page | SPAR Home Page|