PDDL2.1 was designed to push the envelope of what planning algorithms can do, and it has succeeded. It adds two important features: durative actions,which take time (and may have continuous effects); and objective functions for measuring the quality of plans. The concept of durative actions is flawed; and the treatment of their semantics reveals too strong an attachment to the way many contemporary planners work. Future PDDL innovators should focus on producing a clean semantics for additions to the language, and let planner implementers worry about coupling their algorithms to problems expressed in the latest version of the language.

PDDL2.1 was designed to push the envelope of what planning algorithms can do, and it has succeeded. It adds two important features: durative actions, which take time (and may have continuous effects); and objective functions for measuring the quality of plans. The concept of durative actions is flawed; and the treatment of their semantics reveals too strong an attachment to the way many contemporary planners work. Future PDDL innovators should focus on producing a clean semantics for additions to the language, and let planner implementers worry about coupling their algorithms to problems expressed in the latest version of the language. All things considered, Fox and Long have done a terrific job producing PDDL2.1.

Addison-Wesley

'Non-monotonic' logical systems are logics in which the introduction of new axioms can invalidate old theorems. Such logics are very important in modeling the benefits of active processes which, acting in the presence of incomplete information, must make and subsequently revise assumptions in light of new observations. We present the motivation and history of such logics. We develop model and proof theories, a proof procedure, and applications for one non-monotonic logic. In particular, we prove the completeness of the non-monotoic predicate calculus and the decidability of the non-monotonic sentential calculus. We also discuss characteristic properties of this logic and its relationship to stronger logics, logics of incomplete information, and truth maintenance systems. Artificial Intelligence 13:41-72.

As a field, artificial intelligence has always been on the border of respectability, and therefore on the border of crackpottery. Many critics (Dreyfus, 1972), (Lighthill, 1973) have urged that we are over the border. We have been very defensive toward this charge, drawing ourselves up with dignity when it is made and folding the cloak of Science about us. On the other hand, in private, we have been justifiably proud of our willingness to explore weird ideas, because pursuing them is the only way to make progress.

Anyone interested in acting as editor for a special issue of the Newsletter devoted to a particular topic in A! is invited to contact the Editor. Letters to the Editor will be considered as submitted for publication unless they contain a request to the contrary. Technical papers appearing in this issue are unrefereed working papers, and opinions expressed in contributions are to be construed as those of the individual author rather than the official position of SIGART,the ACM, or any organization with which the writer may be affiliated. You are invited to join and participate actively. SIGART membership is open to ACM members upon payment of dues of $3.00 per year and to non-ACM members upon payment of dues of $5.00 per year. To indicate a change of address or to become a member of SIGART, complete the form on the last page of this issue.