The phrase "actions descriptions" is not correct in standard written English.
It seems to be a combination of two words that should be separated or rephrased for clarity.
Example: "The actions descriptions provided in the report were unclear and needed further elaboration."
Alternatives: "action descriptions" or "descriptions of actions".
We propose an approach for integrating planning and control based on behavior schemas, which link physical movements to abstract action descriptions.
We present a proof theory for the logic and show how the logic can be used to describe actions in such a way that the action descriptions can be composed to infer properties of plans via the proof theory.
The approach presented here takes as input a procedural model of the agent's environment and produces as output a set of action descriptions that capture how the agent can exploit the dynamics in the environment.
Separation, reshaping, and conjunction (assembly) are general action descriptions which are instantiated in different cases of artifact making by different techniques or (production) routines.
Action descriptions can be either perfective ("I made the salad") or progressive ("I'm making the salad," "I was making the salad").
We study semantic and computational aspects of the update problem, and establish basic properties of updates as well as a decomposition theorem that gives rise to a divide and conquer approach to updating action descriptions under certain conditions.
Action, description, detail – that's all just stuff.
We start with formalization of the RCS domain in an action description language.
In our study we use the action description language A proposed in 1991 by Gelfond and Lifschitz, and its extensions.
In this paper we first develop a high-level action description language that allows specification of sensing actions and their effects in its domain description and allows queries with conditional plans.
