Re: mappings between SWRL and Boley proposal

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