Re: [OWL-S] Proposal for Making Progress on Process Modeling esp. Preconditons and Effects

Thanks for replying, Michael.

On Jan 15, 2004, at 1:05 AM, Michael Kifer wrote:

>>>>>> "BP" == Message from Bijan Parsia <<bparsia@isr.umd.edu> > writes:
>
>     BP> We're especially
>     BP> interested if people have *problems* with this approach.
>
> Situation calculus is not sufficient for process modeling. You need
> something like Golog. But Golog is *second order*, not first order.

I'll let Sheila answer this point.

> I believe that Concurrent Transaction Logic satisfies your needs and  
> fits
> the intuition that Mark had (but couldn't express :-). It is also
> first-order unless you need default negation.

I'd be interested in a CTL based axiomization of OWL-S. Are you doing  
one for SWSL?

What features would SWRL need to support CTL? How easy is it to combine  
OWL and CTL?

> But I also believe that at some level process modeling requires  
> defaults
> as Benjamin argued in
> http://ebusiness.mit.edu/bgrosof/paps/beyond-mon-inh-wking-pap 
> -081603.pdf

 From what I recall, and from a quick re-skim, the argument there was  
about *relating* process models, or rather, specializing process models  
in a variety of ways. There isn't a large emphasis on that in OWL-S, at  
least at the moment, at least, not the way he discusses. The issue  
we're trying to face is how to effectively present the semantics of an  
individual process model.

It's true that a non-mon approach, from what I understand, helps with,  
e.g., the frame problem, but that can be handled with various other  
forms of the sitcalc.

I think Benjamin's example (in figure 1) can be handled in OWL-S, with  
simpleprocesses, though perhaps not as elegantly.

Cheers,
Bijan Parsia.

Received on Thursday, 15 January 2004 09:22:19 UTC