W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws@w3.org > October 2002

Re: DAML-S feedback

From: David Martin <martin@ai.sri.com>
Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2002 10:41:30 -0700
Message-ID: <3DA70D4A.D31D133B@ai.sri.com>
To: dhurst@lisletech.com
CC: www-ws@w3.org

David, and all -

Thanks for your interest, and also for your patience.  We've been busy
resolving some last-minute debates, incorporating feedback from "beta
reviewers", validating our DAML code, etc.  (Funny how much longer these
things take than they're supposed to :-).  Anyway, the 0.7 release will be
announced later today.

Regards,
David Martin

David Hurst wrote:

> Hello!
>
> Is the DAML-S 0.7 draft publicly available anywhere?  I notice that the
> projected Sept. 30th release is still not up on the DAML-S web site, so I
> was wondering if it would be possible to get a preview of it.
>
> thanx
> --DaveH         "Be Excellent to each other!"
> David Hurst
> Lisle Technology Partners         tel:630.353.1900 x16
> 650 Warrenville Road, suite 100   mailto:dhurst@lisletech.com
> Lisle, Illinois, 60532            http://www.lisletech.com/
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: www-ws-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of
> > Massimo Paolucci
> > Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2002 9:05 AM
> > To: Mohamed Keshk
> > Cc: www-ws@w3.org
> > Subject: Re: DAML-S feedback
> >
> >
> >
> > Thanks Mohamed for your comments.  You are right on the first and the
> > third point, the domain of UNSPSCcode and
> > UNSPSCclassification should be Product
> > not CompositeProcess and the Congo should refer to TemporalInstancnce
> > instead of Time.
> >
> > I think you are right on the second point also,  but I leave David
> > Martin the final call.
> >
> >
> > --- Massimo
> >
> >  > Hi,
> >  >   I went over DAML-S 0.7 draft version and found these
> >  > comments as feedback:
> >  >
> >  > 1 - In "ProfileHierarchy.daml" the following is
> >  > declared:
> >  >
> >  >   <daml:Class rdf:ID="Product">
> >  >     <daml:comment>
> >  >       Product is the top level of a Product ontology
> >  >       for now it records the product classification in
> >  > UNSPSC
> >  >     </daml:comment>
> >  >   </daml:Class>
> >  >
> >  >
> >  >   <daml:DataProperty rdf:ID="UNSPSCcode">
> >  >     <rdfs:domain rdf:resource="#CompositeProcess"/>
> >  >     <!-- SHOULD BE "Product" ??? -->
> >  >     <rdfs:range rdf:resource="&xsd;#String"/>
> >  >   </daml:DataProperty>
> >  >
> >  >   <daml:DataProperty rdf:ID="UNSPSCclassification">
> >  >     <rdfs:domain rdf:resource="#CompositeProcess"/>
> >  >     <!-- SHOULD BE "Product" ??? -->
> >  >     <rdfs:range rdf:resource="&xsd;#String"/>
> >  >   </daml:DataProperty>
> >  >
> >  >
> >  > and I belive the domain in both cases should be
> >  > "#Product" not "#CompositeProcess", because it makes
> >  > more sense and at the same time "CompositeProcess"
> >  > class is not defined in the same ontology.
> >  >
> >  >
> >  > 2 - In "Grounding.daml" the following is declared:
> >  >
> >  > <daml:UniqueProperty rdf:ID="damlsProcess">
> >  >   <rdfs:comment>
> >  >     The atomic process to which this grounding
> >  > applies.
> >  >   </rdfs:comment>
> >  >   <rdfs:domain
> >  > rdf:resource="#WsdlAtomicProcessGrounding"/>
> >  >   <rdfs:range
> >  > rdf:resource="&process;#AtomicProcessPowerSet"/>
> >  > </daml:UniqueProperty>
> >  >
> >  >
> >  > "AtomicProcessPowerSet" class is not defined in
> >  > process ontology
> >  > but "AtomicProcessClass" class is the one defined.
> >  > So, they should be switched.
> >  >
> >  >
> >  > 3 - In "CongoProfile.daml" the following is declared:
> >  >
> >  > <profile:input>
> >  >   <profile:ParameterDescription
> >  > rdf:ID="CreditCardExpirationDate">
> >  >     <profile:parameterName>
> >  >       creditCardExpirationDate
> >  >     </profile:parameterName>
> >  >     <profile:restrictedTo rdf:resource="&time;#Time"/>
> >  >     <profile:refersTo rdf:resource =
> >  >         "&congoProcess;#creditCardExpirationDate"/>
> >  >   </profile:ParameterDescription>
> >  > </profile:input>
> >  >
> >  >
> >  > there is no such class "Time" in time ontology, should
> >  > be changed to
> >  > "TemporalEntity"?. I'm not sure what should it be.
> >  >
> >  > Please correct me if I'm missing something.
> >  >
> >  > Thank you.
> >  >
> >  > Mohamed Keshk
> >  >
> >  >
> >  > __________________________________________________
> >  > Do you Yahoo!?
> >  > Faith Hill - Exclusive Performances, Videos & More
> >  > http://faith.yahoo.com
> >  >
> >
Received on Friday, 11 October 2002 13:40:38 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 3 July 2007 12:25:40 GMT