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

Re: DAML-S expressiveness challenge #1

From: David Martin <martin@AI.SRI.COM>
Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2001 11:56:38 -0700
Message-ID: <3B324366.5D877A77@ai.sri.com>
To: Tim Finin <finin@cs.umbc.edu>
CC: "'Ian Horrocks'" <horrocks@cs.man.ac.uk>, "'Marcelo Tallis'" <mtallis@teknowledge.com>, "'Dan Connolly'" <connolly@w3.org>, www-rdf-logic@w3.org


Tim Finin wrote:

> > 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.

Yes.

>
> 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
> them.

Well put.

- David
Received on Thursday, 21 June 2001 14:55:13 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:52:40 GMT