Issue219

Title Validate against "canonical" domain/problem definition.
Priority wish Status resolved
Superseder Nosy List jendrik, malte
Assigned To Keywords
Optional summary

Created on 2011-03-02.18:29:27 by malte, last changed by malte.

Messages
msg10181 (view) Author: malte Date: 2021-03-18.14:09:46
This clearly does not seem important enough to keep open. Marking as resolved.
msg1247 (view) Author: malte Date: 2011-03-02.18:29:27
(Very low priority.)

In some domains, we use alternative domain formulations (e.g. that compile away
negations) with the property that the plans for the alternative formulations
(should) work verbatim on the original domain formulations.

In cases like these, it would be nice if our plan validation facilities allowed
us to (optionally, or additionally) validate against the canonical formulation.
This could, for example, be achieved by adding meta-info into a PDDL comment
like this:

;; [[[canonical-formulation: pathways/domain.pddl]]]
History
Date User Action Args
2021-03-18 14:09:46maltesetstatus: chatting -> resolved
messages: + msg10181
2011-03-02 18:29:27maltecreate