Tomi Janhunen

concludes the round of panelists with the following comments:

ad Q1+Q2.

Configuration. One issue is that specification is not always clear. Therefore revising the KR language is often necessary. Examples: Chemical engineering, chromatography. Problems: Inexact definitions, errors in the data.

ad Q3.

Programmers often do not know how to characterize the solutions. ASP seems to be suitable for ``trial and error" approaches.

ad Q4.

Compared to Prolog, ASP is more efficient and truly declarative. Mathematical definitions exist.

ad Q5.

Modularity is needed, e.g. subprograms, aggregates, and other abstract features. Software Engineering techniques and tools are needed. Combination with randomized computations (e.g., random assignments for student exercises) is desirable.

ad Q6.

Engineers are already trained to use ASP, so chances are low that ASP is just a hype which will disappear soon. So the current state is promising.

J. Dix thanks the panelists and opens the discussion.