- From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@isr.umd.edu>
- Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2004 05:51:26 -0400
- To: Gerhard Wickler <Gerhard.Wickler@informatik.uni-stuttgart.de>
- Cc: public-sws-ig@w3.org, Drew McDermott <drew.mcdermott@yale.edu>
On Jun 23, 2004, at 5:38 AM, Gerhard Wickler wrote: > Drew McDermott wrote: >> Starting with the issue of "formal semantics": If we allow several >> different notations for preconditions and effects, then they will all >> come with their own formal semantics, no? > > Yes, hopefully they will. > >> Then there will be two >> additional issues: How do the variable values get transmitted across >> the language border, and what does it mean for a formula to be a >> condition or effect of an action? > > It's the second question I'm interested in. These will be specified. > Is there ging to be a formal semantics specification for OWL-S like > the document that describes the semantics of RDF/XML? - If not, then I > guess the question is irrelevant. It's unclear that there will be a OWL-S coalition created specification, at least as a group work. There are several attempts at some sort of general semantics for OWL-S, notably the sitcalc based stuff (Hi Sheila!) and CMU's uhm...ok, I don't remember the name for it, but it's something in the spirit of the semantics for concurrent programming languages such as Erlang and concurrent Haskell (hi Massimo! hi Katyia!) The former is closer to being able to do the job for preconditions and effects, afaict, though I don't know how terribly hard it would be to extend the CMU work (which seems more focused on control constructs). I expect that some one (perhaps Sheila, perhaps us, perhaps both together) will generate a sitcalc spec for OWL-S, the final release. Oh! I forgot Michael Gruninger's translation into PSL. That's another possibility. Shouldn't be hard at all to adapt. For the short term, however, you should expect more informal specification of the semantics. Cheers, Bijan Parsia.
Received on Wednesday, 23 June 2004 05:52:09 UTC