Talk:Event calculus

Relation to the situation calculus?
cf,  Pgr94 (talk) 13:18, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Reversion of likely Hewitt-spam
It appears that Carl Hewitt may have visited this page...--EngineerScotty (talk) 21:44, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Criticism
The following content was deleted by someone.

(Deleted for readability; see the . —Piet Delport (talk) 2009-10-28 15:25 )

68.170.176.166 (talk) 19:07, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Why does Hewitt direct his criticism at the event calculus, when the same objections could be raised against the situation calculus, the fluent calculus, and many similar formalisations of change in AI? Have his criticisms been peer reviewed and published in a respected journal? Is this another case of his arbitrarily picking on one paradigm, logic programming, and claiming it has faults, when his criticism would apply equally well to numerous other paradigms? Logperson (talk) 06:48, 22 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Sounds like you agree with Hewitt's criticism. You are correct that similar objections could be raised against the situation calculus.  However, they apply particularly strongly to the event calculus.71.198.220.76 (talk) 16:35, 22 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I neither agree nor disagree. It's obvious that Hewitt is not interested in a technical debate.Logperson (talk) 07:20, 23 August 2009 (UTC)


 * So why was the published criticism deleted from the article?71.198.220.76 (talk) 20:09, 23 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Is there any reason that the criticism should not be restored? 71.198.220.76 (talk) 17:45, 2 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The criticism is not really published, as far as I can tell. It is on the Arxiv, which presumably means it has not yet been peer-reviewed. 147.123.40.25 (talk) 08:17, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Even DBLP and Google Scholar count ArXiv publications these days. The criticism cited in Norms and Commitment for ORGs (Organizations of Restricted Generality): Strong Paraconsistency and Participatory Behavioral Model Checking ArXiv 0906.2756 of the Event Calculus is interesting on the grounds that "the fundamental assumption of the Event Calculus is overly simplistic when it comes to organizations in which time-varying properties have to be actively maintained and managed in order to continue to hold and termination by another action is not required for a property to no longer hold. I.e., if active measures are not taken then things will go haywire by default." 68.170.176.166 (talk) 21:18, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

The following example was cited:


 * Consider the following property: “Drive safely.” There may be no event which clearly delineates the transition from safe driving to unsafe driving in case of a collision although it is agreed that some “unsafe driving” occurred before the collision.

It seems like an important criticism.171.66.32.134 (talk) 01:13, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Why not put the criticism up on the situation calculus page, replacing the words "event calculus" by "situation calculus" and see how the edit fares there?Logperson (talk) 17:54, 2 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The criticism published by Professor Hewitt is specific to the event calculus. 76.254.235.105 (talk) 20:39, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Wording
did you really intend to mean "f will be false and not true after t." ? (see section "Fluents and actions") —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.93.1.136 (talk) 09:10, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Events not just actions
If I understand correctly, one of the motivations of the event calculus was to formalize representation and reasoning about both external events and agent-generated actions. This article does not reflect that wider purpose. Logperson (talk) 15:32, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

EC as logic program versus EC as a theory in FOL with circumscription
The current draft of the article, which dates back to 2005, focusses on formalising the EC in FOL with circumscription. This was the dominant approach during the 1990s, but has been superceded by the original logic programming approach, implemented in Prolog and Answer Set Programming. Refocussing the article on the logic programming approach would significantly simplify the article and bring it up to date. Unfortunately, this will require an almost complete rewriting. Robert Kowalski (talk) 10:36, 29 December 2023 (UTC)