In their introduction to the recent special issue of "Artificial
Intelligence" on planning (Vol. 76, Nos. 1-2), the editors make the
following claim:
- It may be inevitable for the field of planning to split into
even smaller subfields, each with its own domain of interest
(manufacturing, deliberation scheduling, logistics planning,
etc.) After all, there may not be much in common between
designing the behavior of a robot and designing the behavior
of a military logistics organization. It would be a pity to
see this happen, but if what is gained is a set of elegant and
powerful theories coupled with useful implementations
replacing the current elegant but weak theories coupled with
toy systems, then maybe it will be worth it. (p.13)
Comment on this claim, in light of the reading you did. Do you agree
with it, and if so, what role do you see for the "core" planning
systems and algorithms you read about?