W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws@w3.org > April 2003

Re: Problem with damlsParameter

From: Daniel Elenius <danel698@student.liu.se>
Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2003 17:59:15 +0200
Message-ID: <3EA020D3.7000205@student.liu.se>
To: David Martin <martin@ai.sri.com>, www-ws@w3.org

> Well, we've had some discussion about this.  The designers of DAML+OIL 
> have regarded this as a controversial and somewhat unsettled issue 
> (that is, whether a property can be the range of another property).  
> However, I think it's fair to say that, on a strict reading of the 
> DAML+OIL spec, this usage is not legal.  So you are right.  However, 
> we were not aware of it causing any problems, and consciously decided 
> to leave it this way.


I don't understand how ontologies where you allow properties as range 
entities can be represented as graphs. In the graph representation, the 
way I understood it, properties are the (labelled) directed edges 
between the nodes (which can be classes or primitive values). How can an 
edge point to another edge? It doesn't make sense to me, and I can see 
why it doesn't make sense to the JTP reasoner, it being very logical 
after all :)

> That seems like a reasonable solution for our DAML+OIL files.  Clearly 
> that would remove JTP's error on the declaration of damlsProperty.  
> But then, when damlsProperty is instantiated with a value that's a 
> parameter, I'm wondering if perhaps JTP might then complain about 
> that.  Perhaps that's less of a problem (?). 


I think the damlsParameter should point to the "target" of the process 
model input/output. This will be a class, so we're ok then. We wouldn't 
lose any semantic information except the name of the input/output in the 
process model  (unless it is a subproperty of input/output with 
additional definitions... a big "unless" maybe).

/Daniel
Received on Friday, 18 April 2003 11:59:22 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 3 July 2007 12:25:41 GMT