W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-sws-ig@w3.org > December 2004

Re: Doubt about expressing partial order plan in OWL-S 1.1

From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@isr.umd.edu>
Date: Fri, 31 Dec 2004 11:20:34 +0900
Message-Id: <8D4D19C9-5AD2-11D9-AA78-000D93C1F7A6@isr.umd.edu>
Cc: public-sws-ig@w3.org
To: drew.mcdermott@yale.edu

On Dec 31, 2004, at 9:36 AM, Drew McDermott wrote:
[snip]
>> ***I don't know whether the same perform instance can appear
>> in two or more constructs.***
>
> Syntactically it certainly can, because we routinely use rdf:ID's to
> refer to occurrences of performs.

Small pedantic RDF note: There is no such thing as an "rdf:ID". rdf:ID 
is a syntactic construct for indicating and abbreviating (and enforcing 
a sort of pointless integrity constraint) on URIs. So, technically, we 
routinely use URIs to refer to occurrences of performs.

(Note how rdf:ID="foo" and rdf:about="#foo" will (tend to) generate the 
same URI in the same position. They are sugar.

Also, in an RDF/XML *document* (not graph), you can have only one 
rdf:ID with the same value in the scope of a given base. This was, 
roughly, to distinguish "Definitions" which *introduced* a particular 
URI from other references. But it's a distinction without interesting 
force.

>   You can toss that ID in instead of
> the entire description.  (In the surface syntax, you would use a tag
> as a step; the current grammar might not allow that.)
[snip]

Seems a reasonable extension...any pitfalls?

I presume there is already something in place to handle multiple 
executions of the same perform (i.e., the occurance/execution split).

Cheers,
BIjan Parsia.
Received on Friday, 31 December 2004 02:20:35 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Sunday, 16 March 2008 00:10:59 GMT