- From: Jeff Thompson <jeff@thefirst.org>
- Date: Sun, 03 Aug 2008 11:58:57 -0700
- To: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
- CC: Michael Schneider <schneid@fzi.de>, public-owl-dev@w3.org
Bijan Parsia wrote: > > On Aug 3, 2008, at 2:19 AM, Jeff Thompson wrote: > >> Michael Schneider wrote: >>> Bijan Parsia answered to Jeff Thompson: >>>>> Consider the rule that if X desires Y and X can_do Y, then X does Y. >>>>> In Prolog, this would be: >>>>> >>>>> does(X, Y) :- desires(X, Y), can_do(X, Y). >>>>> >>>>> This is really defining 'does' as the intersection of the >>>>> properties 'desires' and 'can_do'. >>>>> I couldn't find something like this in the OWL use cases. Is there >>>>> a way to do this in OWL2? >> Consider the simpler example "if Y is Desirable and Y is Doable >> then Y is Done". In OWL 2 with class intersections: >> SubClassOf(ObjectIntersectionOf(Desirable Doable) Done) >> Thus if >> ClassAssertion(action Desirable) >> ClassAssertion(action Doable) >> we can conclude >> ClassAssertion(action Done) >> >> In Prolog: >> 'Done'(Y) :- 'Desirable'(Y), 'Doable'(Y). >> >> I am asking about the same thing with properties. > > Yeah, doubtful and not obvious. You can add boolean operators on roles > in a lot of cases but it generally makes things harder. See: > http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~ezolin/dl/ > and > http://iswc2007.semanticweb.org/papers/435.pdf > > (You might also look at ALC_{reg} and PDL.) > > If you are willing for this not to (directly) affect subsumptions, then > DL Safe rules will do the job. I sounds like many implementors see that even OWL 2 is not expressive enough to solve their data processing needs, and so everyone has their own extensions in Pellet, etc. And yet, the argument against adding more expressiveness to OWL 2 (still decidable) is the fear that not enough people will implement it and so that "OWL 2 compliant" won't mean much. I know it's a difficult political task to balance. Is the general assumption that there will need to be several more revision cycles to OWL before a large number of people will use it as specified without needing to add their own incompatible extensions?
Received on Sunday, 3 August 2008 18:59:41 UTC