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

Re: [WSDL] Message Typing

From: David Martin <martin@AI.SRI.COM>
Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2004 22:58:11 -0800
Message-ID: <4057F703.4030205@ai.sri.com>
To: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@isr.umd.edu>
Cc: public-sws-ig@w3.org

Meta-note: Here I'm replying to not the last, but one of the last 
messages in this thread on public-sws-ig.  I'm aware of the related 
thread (2-3 weeks ago I guess) on www-ws-desc, but I think this list is 
a more appropriate place for this particular topic.  (It would probably 
be even better to restart this topic on www-rdf-logic or some other list 
that's read by more people responsible for OWL and OWL Query Language 
evolution; hopefully we'll get to that.)

I'm omitting all but the summary from Bijan's message, to keep things 
from getting too confusing.

Bijan Parsia wrote:

> So, to sum up this ramble:
>     1) There is no "message" element in WSDL 2.0 (From the Part 1 change 
> log: 20030804 JCS
>          Removed Message component per 30 July-1 Aug meeting.)
>     2) The Decker problem needs to be solved!
>     3) The Service as Process with Parameters vs. Service with 
> Operations that are message
>          exchanges gap got wider.
>     4) I'm leaning toward thinking that my minimal solution doesn't 
> really help anyone.

I'm afraid I haven't much time to think through these issues, but 
intuitively I have the strong feeling that it should be possible to 
arrive at some reasonably straightforward solution.  What about 
something along these lines:

An input type (of a Semantic Web service) is specified as
1) the URI of a named OWL class C, along with
2) a set of URIs for loadable OWL KBs in which that class is defined.
(Typically I think there would just be a single KB, but we're allowing 
for the case in which relevant declarations exist in several KBs.)

An input corresponding to that type is
3) a collection of OWL instances, of which one is identified as the 
"designated instance" DI.

Something like the following three conditions would be used to establish 
the validity of the input:

Let Knowledge Base K be the union of all the KBs mentioned in (2) along 
with the instances of (3).

C1) DI has to be properly classifiable as an instance of the class C, 
using standard DL classification techniques, in the context of K.

C2) By special convention, the restrictions in K that apply directly to 
DI must themselves be "concretely instantiated" in K.  (So, if there's a 
restriction that an instance of class C must have exactly 1 instance of 
property P, then exactly 1 such instance of P for DI must be present in K.)

C3) This special convention must also hold for the other instances in 
(3), besides DI.  [I list this separately because I'm less clear about 
it :-].

I'm not a DL expert, and the above is fuzzy in certain ways, and I've no 
doubt I'm omitting various details and subtleties of the problem (and 
I'm looking forward to hearing what they are :-).   I'm hoping to 
generate some discussion towards a pragmatic set of conventions that 
might ensure the usefulness of OWL for purposes such as the one at hand.

Received on Wednesday, 17 March 2004 01:58:52 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:54:12 UTC