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

Re: [OWL-S] Negative effects/delete lists

From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@isr.umd.edu>
Date: Sun, 28 Mar 2004 20:00:28 -0500
Message-Id: <781C65E0-811C-11D8-8F97-0003936A0B26@isr.umd.edu>
Cc: public-sws-ig@w3.org
To: Katia Sycara <katia@cs.cmu.edu>

On Mar 28, 2004, at 7:25 PM, Katia Sycara wrote:

> Bijan,
>  Given that we aim for wide applicability of OWL-S, we should be
> prescriptive and advisive.
>  --Katia

Hmm. That wasn't the line of reasoning I was expecting. And I tend to 
think of 'prescriptive' as some sort of contrary to 'advisive' (which 
is a word I made up :)).

So, what sort of prescriptions and/or advice do you think we should 

Sample prescription:
	Do not have effects that are complementary to the entailments of your 
KB. (Similarly, don't have entailments of your KB that are 
complementsOf some effects.)

(Advising version:
	Effects which are the complement of some entailment of the KB may 
result in counterintuitive situations. [Insert example where an axiom 
entails, say, that you always have such and such a credit card, but 
some service has an effect that the card is canceled. This isn't 
*incoherent*, but it may be a bit surprising.])

I guess it wasn't clear, but if we're not just letting chips fall as 
they may, I would like some feedback on what we should say.

Bijan Parsia.
Received on Sunday, 28 March 2004 21:03:03 UTC

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