- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@inf.unibz.it>
- Date: Wed, 17 May 2006 08:47:03 -0400 (EDT)
- To: wagnerg@TU-Cottbus.De
- Cc: public-rif-wg@w3.org
From: "Gerd Wagner" <wagnerg@TU-Cottbus.De> Subject: Re: mappings between SWRL and Boley proposal Date: Wed, 17 May 2006 11:25:03 -0000 > On Wed, Mai 17, 2006, "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@inf.unibz.it> > wrote: > > > Here are two complete mappings between the proposal syntax and SWRL > > syntax. I claim that, based on the proposal, that they are as good as any > > other. > > What does this mean, "as good as any other"? Some of your > suggestions are (I guess, deliberately) pretty strange. Well, I'm just going by what I see (or don't see) in the proposal. > > Mapping from SWRL to Proposal Syntax > > > > M[Antecedent( atom1 ... atomn )] = Or ( M[atom1] ... M[atomn] ) > > Why do you map the conjunctive SWRL-Antecedent to a disjunction? What limits me from doing this? > Is this intended to be a provocation? Of what? Well, I *am* trying to explore the limits and limitations of the proposal. > Obviously, your mapping does not preserve satisfaction, > which is a requirement in the proposal. Where is this mentioned in the proposal? > Let me suggest another mapping based on an extended version of > the proposal syntax with optional typing. Where do we get to propose extensions? Can I propose an extension and use it in my mappings? > I'm using a restricted > concept of "desciption" including only classID, but it is > clear that we can also treat 'unionOf' and 'intersectionOf' > with the help of 'Or' and 'And'. Since we don't want to include > negation ('complementOf') for the purpose of this discussion, Why not? > we > cannot have a complete but only a partial mapping anyway. But certainly complete mappings are to be preferred, right? > Here is the extended proposal syntax with optional typing, where > 'G' stands for 'generic', 'D' for 'data' and 'O' for 'object': > > Data ::= value > Ind ::= object > Var ::= GVar | DVar |OVar > GVar ::= '?' name > DVar ::= 'D-variable(' '?' name ')' > OVar ::= 'O-variable(' '?' name ')' > TERM ::= GTERM | DTERM | OTERM > GTERM ::= Data | Ind | GVar | GExpr > DTERM ::= Data | DVar | DExpr > OTERM ::= Ind | OVar | OExpr > GExpr ::= GFun '(' GTERM* ')' > DExpr ::= DFun '(' TERM* ')' > OExpr ::= OFun '(' TERM* ')' > > Atom ::= GAtom | DClassificationAtom | OClassificationAtom | > DPropertyAtom | OPropertyAtom | GEqualityAtom | > OEqualityAtom | DatatypeAtom > > GAtom ::= genericRelID '(' GTERM* ')' > GEqualityAtom ::= GTERM '=' GTERM > DClassificationAtom ::= datatypeID '(' DTERM ')' > OClassificationAtom ::= classID '(' OTERM ')' > OPropertyAtom ::= oPropertyID '(' OTERM OTERM ')' > DPropertyAtom ::= dPropertyID '(' OTERM DTERM ')' > OEqualityAtom ::= OTERM '=' OTERM > DatatypeAtom ::= datatypePelID '(' DTERM* ')' > > LITFORM ::= Atom > QUANTIF ::= 'Exists' Var+ '(' CONDIT ')' > CONJ ::= 'And' '(' CONDIT* ')' > DISJ ::= 'Or' '(' CONDIT* ')' > CONDIT ::= LITFORM | QUANTIF | CONJ | DISJ > > Then, > > M[Antecedent( atom1 ... atomn )] = And ( M[atom1] ... M[atomn] ) > M[classID( i-object )]= classID ( M[i-object] ) > M[datatypeID ( d-object )] = datatypeID ( M[d-object] ) > M[individualvaluedPropertyID ( i-object1 i-object2 )] = > individualvaluedPropertyID ( M[i-object1] M[i-object2] ) > M[datavaluedPropertyID ( i-object d-object )] = > datavaluedPropertyID ( M[i-object] M[d-object] ) > M[sameAs ( i-object1 i-object2 )] = M[i-object1] = M[i-object2] > M[builtIn ( builtinID d-object1 ... d-objectn )] = > builtinID ( M[d-object1] ... M[d-objectn] ) > M[individualID] = individualID > M[dataLiteral] = dataLiteral > M[I-variable( URIreference )] = URIreference > M[D-variable( URIreference )] = URIreference > M[classID] = classID > M[datatypeID] = datatypeID > > This pretty much preserves your mapping, but is more meaningful > with respect to antecedent (and to the allowed forms of > 'description', 'unionOf' and 'intersectionOf'). How is it more meaningful in the terms of the proposal? > The extended proposal syntax with optional typing also > allows a faithful inverse mapping of typed atoms to SWRL. Oh? Which atoms? All of them? > -Gerd peter
Received on Wednesday, 17 May 2006 12:47:20 UTC