Commit 671191a3 authored by Markus Klinik's avatar Markus Klinik
Browse files

discussion: scheduling vs planning

parent 800b3de0
......@@ -40,10 +40,14 @@ The example in \cref{sec:example-conflicting-objectives} shows how emphasizing t
The example in \cref{sec:example-search-and-rescue} demonstrates how arbitrary constraints can be encoded in user-defined quality functions, in this case to prevent Bob from having to fly the helicopter.
\paragraph{Planning versus scheduling}
In \cref{sec:planning-vs-scheduling} we argue that planning and scheduling can not always be clearly separated.
Nonetheless, many such situations can be expressed as C2 scheduling problems, by choosing an appropriate level of abstraction.
For example, even though choosing between a helicopter and a boat requires different setup and cleanup procedures, we can model the situation as three generic tasks: setup, perform, and cleanup.
We assume that the personnel is sufficiently educated to know which setup and cleanup procedures are required for either transport.
\item The decision whether a boat or a helicopter should be used can be seen as a planning problem, not a scheduling problem.
\item Planning and scheduling overlap when a resource is a case.
\item Stop criterion: keep calculating until convergence instead of fixed number of rounds
\item Feasibility checking. We don't do it. See \citet{CorreiaLS2012} for a method.
......@@ -21,6 +21,7 @@ Such a chain of actions is called a \emph{plan}.
Planning is only concerned with the effects of actions on the state, but not with who should execute them and when.
This is the purpose of the scheduler.
The output of the planner is the input of the scheduler.
In other words, planning answers the question ``What to do?'', while scheduling answers the question ``Who does it?''
There are two problems with this division.
Markdown is supported
0% or .
You are about to add 0 people to the discussion. Proceed with caution.
Finish editing this message first!
Please register or to comment