W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-logic@w3.org > June 2001

RE: DAML-S expressiveness challenge #1

From: Tim Finin <finin@cs.umbc.edu>
Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2001 14:06:30 -0400
To: "'Ian Horrocks'" <horrocks@cs.man.ac.uk>, "'Marcelo Tallis'" <mtallis@teknowledge.com>
Cc: "'David Martin'" <martin@ai.sri.com>, "'Dan Connolly'" <connolly@w3.org>, <www-rdf-logic@w3.org>
Message-ID: <000501c0fa7c$e60c5330$a5635582@cs.umbc.edu>
> From: www-rdf-logic-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:www-rdf-logic-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Ian Horrocks
> ...
> Another possible interpretation is some sort of "role value 
> map", as it is called in description logics. i.e., we may 
> want to say that for all pairs of individuals (x,y) related 
> by some property P (or some chain of properties), the P1 
> property of x and the P2 property of y must have the same 
> individual as their objects. I believe that we can't capture 
> this in DAML+OIL - if we can then we made some mistake 
> somewhere as the language would certainly be undecidable.

I understood that this was what David needs, or something close to it.
We want to be able to say, for example, that a Process has two
steps and that the output of step one must be the same individual
as the input of step two.  If we don't have this in our language then it
may be very hard to model complex processes which have sub-processes
that have constraints between them. For that matter, it will be hard to
model complex things composed of parts which have constraints among

Received on Thursday, 21 June 2001 14:05:51 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 2 March 2016 11:10:35 UTC