Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Frames, Multi-Agents and Good Behaviours in Planning Rationales

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Making Strategies in Spatial Planning

Part of the book series: Urban and Landscape Perspectives ((URBANLAND,volume 9))

  • 2252 Accesses

Abstract

Spatial planning still lacks of robust scientific attention to knowledge and knowledge-in-action coordination in multi-agent environments. This limitation is particularly invalidating, as the current generation of spatial plans aims at democratising its traditional expert and top-down approach and enhancing its knowledge contents and multi-logic potentials. At the forefront of knowledge engineering, distributed and multi-agent intelligence, unfortunately, when paying attention to coordination of multi-agent microtasks in task accomplishment is still short in the elaboration of the integrated social thoughts that are prerequisites of the new generation of knowledge-based interactive spatial plans.

In the first part this chapter analyses features and outcomes of Multiple Source Knowledge Acquisition and Integration (MSKI), considering that in knowledge-based spatial planning engineering there is increasing awareness of the typical rational and computational complexity.

The new strategic, interactive and strongly future-oriented and visionary socio-environmental planning, in which through cognitive sessions and forums a multiplicity of agents (stakeholders) interact to set and solve complex problems, is an interesting challenge to multi-agent coordination in knowledge engineering. The second part considers the frame problem and the generation of Multi-Agent Knowledge, taking into account of new knowledge and practical relevance of the cognitive experiments in problem-setting and/or solving. The third part explores the potentials of cooperation-competition dilemmas in strategic interactive planning.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Allen, J., Kautz, H., Pelavin, R., Tenenber, J. (Eds.). (1991). Reasoning about plans. San Mateo, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arrow, K. J. (1963). Social choice and individual values. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Avlijas, N., Borri, D., & Monno, V. (2005) Facing the crisis in contexts in transition: Rethinking local development through experimentations of strategic visioning. Paper presented at the Conference of the Regional Studies Association Regional Growth Agendas, University of Aalborg, Aalborg.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bacchus, F., & Kabanza, F. (2000). Using temporal logics to express search control knowledge for planning. Artificial Intelligence, 116(1), 123–191.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baral, C., Kreinovich, V., & Trejo, R. (2000). Computational complexity of planning and approximate planning in the presence of incompleteness. Artificial Intelligence, 122(1), 241–242.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barbanente, A., & Borri, D. (2000). Reviewing self-sustainability. Plurimondi, II(4), 5–19.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barbanente, A., Borri, D., & Concilio, G. (2001). Escapable dilemmas in planning: Decisions vs. transactions. In H. Voogd (Ed.), Recent developments in evaluation (pp. 355–376). Groningen: Geopress.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bauer, M., Biundo, S., Dengler, D., Hecking, M., Koehler, J., & Merziger, G. (1991). Integrated plan generation and recognition. A logic-based approach. Informatik-Fachberichte, 291, 266–277.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Binetti, M., Borri, D., Circella, G., & Mascia, M. (2005) Does prospect theory improve the understanding of transit user behaviour? In: Proceedings of the 9th Conference on Computers in Urban Planning and Urban Management (CUPUM), London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blum, A., & Furst, M. L. (1995) Fast planning through planning graph analysis. In: Proceedings of the International Joint Conferences on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI-95), Montreal, pp. 1636–1642.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bonet, B., Loerincs, G., & Geffner, H. (1997) A robust and fast action selection mechanism for planning. In: Proceedings of the 14th National Conference on Artificial Intelligence and 9th Innovative Applications of Artificial Intelligence Conference (AAAI-97/IAAI-97), pp. 714–719.

    Google Scholar 

  • Borri, D. (2001). Planning in evolution. In N. Maiellaro (Ed.), Towards sustainable building (pp. 3–10). Dordrecht: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Borri, D. (2002). Intelligent learning devices in planning. In K. Alexiou & T. Zamenopoulos (Eds.), Proceedings of the seminar on computational models in design and planning support. London: Center for Advanced Spatial Analysis, University College London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Borri, D., Camarda, D., & De Liddo, A. (2004). Envisioning environmental futures: Multi-agent knowledge generation, frame problem and cognitive mapping. Lectures Notes in Computer Science, 3190, 230–237.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Borri, D., Camarda, D., & De Liddo, A. (2005c). Mobility in environmental planning: An integrated multi-agent approach. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 3675, 119–129.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Borri, D., Camarda, D., & Grassini, L. (2005a). Complex knowledge in the environmental domain: Building intelligent architectures for water management. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 353, 762–772.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Borri, D., Camarda, D., & Grassini, L. (2006). Distributed knowledge in environmental planning: A hybrid IT-based approach to building future scenarios. Group Decision and Negotiation, 15(6), 557–580.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Borri, D., & Cera, M. (2005). An intelligent hybrid agent for medical emergency vehicles. Navigation in urban spaces. In P. van Oosterom, S. Zlatanova, & E. M. Fendel (Eds.), Geoinformation for disaster management (pp. 951–964). Berlin: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Borri, D., Concilio, G., Selicato, F., & Torre, C. (2005b). Ethical and moral reasoning and dilemmas in evaluation processes: Perspectives for intelligent agents. In D. Miller & D. Patassini (Eds.), Beyond benefit cost analysis. Accounting for non-market values in planning evaluation (pp. 249–277). Brookfield, VT: Ashgate.

    Google Scholar 

  • Borri, D., Grassini, L., & Starkl, M. (2009) Technological innovations and decision making changes in the water sector: Experiences from India. Paper presented at the Palestinian Water Authority 2nd International Conference on Water Values and Rights, Ramallah.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chapman, D. (1987). Planning with conjunctive goals. Artificial Intelligence, 32(3), 333–377.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, P. R. (1995). Empirical methods for artificial intelligence. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Damasio, A. R. (1995). Descartes’ error. New York: Avon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Durfee, E. H. (1988). Coordination of distributed problem solvers. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Fagin, R., Halpern, J., Moses, Y., & Vardi, M. (1995). Reasoning about knowledge. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Faludi, A. (1973). Planning theory. Oxford: Pergamon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Faludi, A. (1987). A decision-centred view of environmental planning. Oxford: Pergamon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ferber, J. (1997). Multi-agent decision support systems. London: Addison-Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fikes, R. E., & Nilsson, N. J. (1971). STRIPS: A new approach to the application of theorem proving to problem solving. Artificial Intelligence, 2(3–4), 189–208.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Finger, J. (1986). Exploiting constraints in design synthesis. Ph.D. Thesis. Stanford, CA: Department of Computer Science, Stanford University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Forester, J. (1989). Planning in the face of power. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Forester, J. (1999). The deliberative practitioner. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Friedmann, J. (1981). The good society. Cambridge: The MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Friedmann, J. (1987). Planning in the public domain. From knowledge to action. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gelfond, M., & Lifschitz, V. (1993). Representing actions and change by logic programs. Journal of Logic Programming, 17(2–4), 301–323.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ginsberg, M. L. (1989a). Universal planning: An (almost) universally bad idea. AI Magazine, 10(4), 40–44.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ginsberg, M. L. (1989b). Ginsberg replies to chapman and schoppers. AI Magazine, 10(4), 61–62.

    Google Scholar 

  • Giunchiglia, F., & Spalazzi, L. (1999). Intelligent planning: A decomposition and abstraction based approach to classical planning. Artificial Intelligence, 111(1–2), 329–338.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Green, C. (1969) Applications of theorem proving to problem solving. In: Proceedings of the International Joint Conferences on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI 69), Washington, p. 219.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hammond, K. J. (1990). Case-based planning: A framework for planning from experience. Cognitive Science, 14(3), 385–443.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Healey, P. (1997). Collaborative planning. Shaping places in fragmented societies. London: MacMillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Horty, J. F., & Pollack, M. E. (2001). Evaluating new options in the context of existing plans. Artificial Intelligence, 127(2), 199–220.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ishida, T. (1997). Real time search for learning autonomous agents. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jennings, N. R., Wooldridge, M. (Eds.). (1998). Agent technology: Foundations, applications, and markets. Berlin: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jonsson, P., Haslum, P., & Backstrom, C. (2000). Towards efficient universal planning: A randomized approach. Artificial Intelligence, 117(1), 1–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koehler, J., Nebel, B., Hoffmann, J., & Dimopoulos, Y. (1997) Extending planning graphs to an ADL sub-set. In: Proceedings of the 4th European Conference on Planning (ECP-97), Toulouse, pp. 275–287.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kolodner, J. (1993). Case-based reasoning. San Mateo, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.

    Google Scholar 

  • Laird, J., Newell, A., & Rosenbloom, P. (1987). SOAR: An architecture for general intelligence. Artificial Intelligence, 33(1), 1–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Latouche, S. (1991). La Planéte des Naufragés: Essai sur l’Après-Développement. Paris: La Découverte.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewin, K. (1948). Resolving social conflicts: Selected papers on group dynamics. New York: Harpres and Bros.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCarthy, J. (1977) Epistemological problems of artificial intelligence. In: Proceedings of the International Joint Conferences on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI-77), Cambridge, pp. 1038–1044.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCarthy, J., & Hayes, P. (1969). Some philosophical problems from the standpoint of artificial intelligence. In B. Meltzer & D. Michie (Eds.), Machine intelligence 4 (pp. 463–502). Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • McIlraith, S. (2000). Integrating actions and state constraints: A closed-form solution to the ramification problem (sometimes). Artificial Intelligence, 116(1), 87–121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Minsky, M. L. (1986). Society of mind. New York: Simon and Schuster.

    Google Scholar 

  • Minton, S. (1988). Learning search control knowledge. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Papadimitriou, C. H. (1994). Computational complexity. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pearl, J. (1985). Heuristics: Intelligent search strategies for computer problem solving. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pednault, E. (1988). Synthesizing plans that contain actions with context-dependent effects. Computational Intelligence, 4(4), 356–372.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pednault, E. (1989) ADL: Exploring the middle ground between STRIPS and the situation calculus. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning, Toronto, pp. 324–332.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reiter, R. (2001). Knowledge in action: Logical foundations for specifying and implementing dynamical systems. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosenschein, S. (1981) Plan synthesis: A logical approach. In: Proceedings of the International Joint Conferences on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI-81), Vancouver, pp. 359–380.

    Google Scholar 

  • Russell, S., & Norvig, P. (1995). Artificial intelligence. A modern approach. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sacerdoti, E. D. (1977). A structure for plans and behaviour. New York: Elsevier/North-Holland.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sandercock, L. (1998). Towards cosmopolis. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schank, R. C. (1982). Dynamic memory: A theory of learning in computers and people. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schoppers, M. J. (1987) Universal plans for reactive robots in unpredictable environments. In Proceedings of IJCAI-87, Milano, pp. 1039–1046.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schubert, L. K. (1990). Monotonic solution of the frame problem in the situation calculus: An efficient method for worlds with fully specified actions. In H. E. Kyburg, R. P. Loui, & G. N. Carlson (Eds.), Knowledge representation and defeasible reasoning (pp. 23–67). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Schön, D. A. (1991). The reflective turn: Case studies in and on educational practice. New York: Teacher’s College Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Selman, B. (1994) Near-optimal plans, tractability, and reactivity. In: Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on the Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning, Bonn, pp. 521–529.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shakun, M. (1999). Consciousness, spirituality, and right decision/negotiation in purposeful complex adaptive systems. Group Decision and Negotiation, 8(1), 1–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shanahan, M. (1997). Solving the frame problem. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simon, H. A. (1982). Models of bounded rationality. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Soucek, B. (1997). Quantum mind networks. Split: FESB.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sutton, R. S., & Barto, A. G. (1998). Reinforcement learning. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Veloso, M., Carbonell, J., Pérez, A., Borrajo, D., Fink, E., & Blythe, J. (1995). Integrating planning and learning: The PRODIGY architecture. Journal of Experimental and Theoretical Artificial Intelligence, 7(1), 81–120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Watts, D. J. (1999). Small worlds, the dynamics of networks between order and randomness. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilkins, D. E. (1988). Practical planning: Extending the classical AI planning paradigm. San Mateo, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yang, Q. (1997). Intelligent planning: A decomposition and abstraction based approach. Berlin: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Sections of this chapter refer to papers presented in various occasions. In particular Sections 14.1, 14.2 and 14.3 are a re-elaboration of an invited lecture that was presented in a seminar on multi-agents in planning organised by professor Lidia Diappi at the Polytechnic of Milan in 2002 and Section 14.4 is a re-elaboration of an invited lecture that was presented in a seminar on planning evolution organised by professor Corrado Zoppi at the University of Cagliari in 2007.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Architecture and Town Planning, Polytechnic of Bari, Bari, 70125, Italy

    Dino Borri

Authors
  1. Dino Borri
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Dino Borri .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Dipto. Conservazione dei Beni, Architettonici e Ambientali, Università di Napoli Federico II, Via Roma 402, Napoli, 80132, Italy

    Maria Cerreta

  2. Fac. Architettura, Dipto. Architettura e Pianificazione, Politecnico di Milano, Via Bonardi 3, Milano, 20133, Italy

    Grazia Concilio

  3. , Department of Architecture and Town Plan, Polytechnic of Bari, Via Orabona 4, Bari, 70125, Italy

    Valeria Monno

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2010 Springer Science+Business Media B.V.

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Borri, D. (2010). Frames, Multi-Agents and Good Behaviours in Planning Rationales. In: Cerreta, M., Concilio, G., Monno, V. (eds) Making Strategies in Spatial Planning. Urban and Landscape Perspectives, vol 9. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-3106-8_14

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation