This paper is concerned with those elements of planning knowledge that are common to both understanding someone else's plan and creating a plan for one's own use. This planning knowledge can be divided into two bodies: Knowledge about the world, and knowledge about the planning process itself. Our interest here is primarily with the latter corpus. The central thesis is that much of the knowledge about the planning process itself can be formulated in terms of higher‐level goals and plans called (...) meta‐goals and meta‐plans. These entities can then be used by the same understanding and planning mechanisms that process ordinary goals and plans. However, the meta‐planning knowledge now enables these mechanisms to handle much more complicated situations in a uniform manner.Systems based on meta‐planning would have a number of advantages over existing problem solving and understanding systems. The same knowledge could be shared by both a planner and understander, and both would be able to handle complex situations elegantly. In addition, in planning, the use of meta‐planning has several advantages over more traditional methods involving constraints or critics. Meta‐planning allows the full power of a problem solver to be applied to situations that are generally amenable only to special purpose processing. In addition, meta‐planning facilitates the representation of some situations that are difficult to express otherwise. We have begun to introduce meta‐planning knowledge into two systems: PAM, a story understanding program, and PANDORA, a problem solving and plannin̈g system. (shrink)

A new theory of problem solving is presented, which embeds problem solving in the theory of action; in this theory, a problem is just a difficult action. Making this work requires a sophisticated language for‐talking about plans and their execution. This language allows a broad range of types of action, and can also be used to express rules for choosing and scheduling plans. To ensure flexibility, the problem solver consists of an interpreter driven by a theorem prover which actually manipulates (...) formulas of the language. Many examples of the use of the system six given. including an extended treatment of the world of blocks. Limitations and extensions of the system are discussed at length. It is concluded that a rule‐based problem solver is necessary and feasible, but that much more work remains to be done on the underlying theory of planning and acting. (shrink)