From: Sheila McIlraith <sam@ksl.Stanford.EDU>

Date: Sun, 28 Dec 2003 10:44:38 -0800 (PST)

To: Drew McDermott <drew.mcdermott@yale.edu>

Cc: www-rdf-rules@w3.org, <sheila@cs.toronto.edu>

Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.44.0312281038340.29586-100000@ksl.Stanford.EDU>

Date: Sun, 28 Dec 2003 10:44:38 -0800 (PST)

To: Drew McDermott <drew.mcdermott@yale.edu>

Cc: www-rdf-rules@w3.org, <sheila@cs.toronto.edu>

Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.44.0312281038340.29586-100000@ksl.Stanford.EDU>

Drew, Thanks for the response. One of the objectives of this post was to get a clear statement from someone developing SWRL regarding: - what extra expressivity was required in order to encode a typical situation calculus axiomatization - was it possible to extend the language. As you note, function symbols are one necessary extension. And to reiterate your question, is SWRL meant "to be an open-ended framework, or a notation nailed to a rigid OWL frame?" Comments from the SWRL-ers out there? Sheila On Fri, 19 Dec 2003, Drew McDermott wrote: > > > [Sheila McIlraith] > ...We are asking whether we can axiomatize a situation > calculus [2] domain theory in SWRL. The situation calculus > calculus is a first-order logical language for reasoning about > action and change. It has proven sufficiently expressive for > axiomatizing a Web service process model, and we wondered whether > such a process model could be expressed in SWRL. If not, can > SWRL be extended to axiomatize a situation calculus domain theory? > > To this end, the following is an example of an axiom we would like > to encode: > > Forall x. Forall s. > holding(x,do(a,s)) iff > [(a=pickup(x)) V (holding(x,s) & (a neq putdown(x))] > > I don't think SWRL has function terms, so it can't handle 'do', > 'pickup', or 'putdown'. > > Of course, it's easy to add them. It's not clear, I guess, whether > SWRL is meant to be an open-ended framework, or a notation nailed to > a rigid OWL frame. > > -- > -- Drew McDermott > Yale Computer Science Department > > P.S. I'm sure William Jennings Bryan, if we were alive today, and > still a Democrat, would endorse the "open-ended" option: "You shall > not crucify mankind upon a cross of OWL." > > > ============================================================================== Sheila McIlraith, Department of Computer Science University of TorontoReceived on Sunday, 28 December 2003 13:44:46 UTC

*
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1
: Wednesday, 2 March 2016 11:10:15 UTC
*