Re: Small problem with Expression.owl

Quick point.

---- Original message ----
>Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2005 15:37:52 -0700
>From: David Martin <martin@AI.SRI.COM>  
>Subject: Re: Small problem with Expression.owl  
>To: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@isr.umd.edu>
>Cc: public-sws-ig@w3.org, Daniel Elenius <elenius@csl.sri.com>
>Bijan Parsia wrote:
>> On Jun 23, 2005, at 11:27 AM, David Martin wrote:
>> 
>>> Bijan Parsia wrote:
[snip]
>I'm aware of the issues.  E.g., we've stretched things a bit by using 
>AtomLists outside of rules.  (But by and large we are using the syntax 
>in accord with the spec., and the way we are going beyond that is 
>straightforward.)   The semantics talks about what it means for an atom 
>to be satisfied and I  believe it requires only a straightforward tweak 
>to a SWRL reasoner (or possibly no tweak at all, depending on how the 
>reasoner is designed) to test the satisfaction of an AtomList 
>independently of any rule.

And in that context, it's likely that the semantics are similar. In the context of 
the original document it's quite different. In SWRL, atom lists in bodys are 
evaluated against a static document/KB. In OWL-S, atom lists are evaluated in a 
situation (and re-evaluated in other situations). A translation into FOL of both 
would clearly reveal the difference.

But, like, so? it's probably equally fair to say that we're not using OWL or OWL DL 
too! The only differences is whether it's worth having un preprocessed OWL-S 
files be OWL-DL. Since OWL-DL has a stable, standardized meaning with some 
uptake, it seems worth aiming for that. Even if you used rdf:List et al, OWL-S 
documents are not going to be SWRL documents. So, saying to OWL-S tools, 'If 
you want to use a swrl reasoner, you first have to extract the atom lists, then 
perhaps tweak them a bit" vs. 'you first have to extract the atom lists, then 
covert the list vocabulary, then tweak them a bit" seems like the course of lessor 
resistence.

>  There is some unhappiness about including 
>the unquoted SWRL expressions in our OWL files, but that particular 
>debate isn't about whether or not we are *using* SWRL.
[snip]

I trust my meaning is clear now. I really thought it was both unexceptional and 
non-derogatory. From Mindswap's perspective, there is use in the SWRL brand 
and use in the OWL DL brand (e.g., in talking with Fujistu and Fujistu 
customers). I think there is more value in the OWL DL brand at this point, so I do 
have a strong preference for maintaining OWL DLiness. Either way, it's not like 
you can run an OWL DL reasoner or a SWRL reasoner over OWL-S files and get 
out the OWL-S semantics.

Cheers,
Bijan Parsia.

Received on Thursday, 23 June 2005 23:32:12 UTC