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

Re: [OWL-S] new IOPE example #1

From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@isr.umd.edu>
Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2004 18:39:11 -0500
Message-Id: <9C64B086-836C-11D8-AEC8-0003939E0B44@isr.umd.edu>
Cc: public-sws-ig <public-sws-ig@w3.org>
To: David Martin <martin@AI.SRI.COM>

On Mar 31, 2004, at 2:57 PM, David Martin wrote:

> Bijan -
>
> Thanks for commenting...
>
> Bijan Parsia wrote:
>
>> Quick response.
>> On Mar 31, 2004, at 2:54 AM, David Martin wrote:
>> [snip]
>>>   <process:hasEffect>
>>>     <???:Formula>
>>>       <???:inLanguage rdf:datatype=
>>>         "&xsd;anyURI">...swrl...</???:inLanguage>
>> I wouldn't use a literal here. The problems that faced us with 
>> parameterTypes don't apply. I expect swrl et al to have uris and 
>> could be made to be of type, say, LogicFormalism.
>
> So then someone would declare the LogicFormalism class somewhere, and 
> someone would also declare an instance of that class corresponding to 
> SWRL (or DRS or SWRL++ or whatever) and then we'd mention that 
> instance as the value of inLanguage (or whatever better name we come 
> up with for that property).  Is that what
> you have in mind here?

Exactly.
[snip]
> On some property wrapping ???:conjuncts. (well, conjuncts would need a 
> parent node then). Hmm. That makes it a touch less appealing. The 
> problem is that *our* "formula" really is a wrapper for other people's 
> "formual" with extra metadata. So a bit of repetition seems very hard 
> to avoid.
>
> Yeah, that's what I was thinking also.

Cool.

Cheers,
Bijan Parsia.
Received on Wednesday, 31 March 2004 18:43:37 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 9 December 2014 23:03:41 UTC