W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-sws-ig@w3.org > November 2003

Re: the precondition property in OWL-S 1.0

From: Monika Solanki <monika@dmu.ac.uk>
Date: Sun, 09 Nov 2003 10:09:19 +0000
Message-ID: <3FAE124F.1050901@dmu.ac.uk>
To: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@isr.umd.edu>
Cc: Drew McDermott <drew.mcdermott@yale.edu>, public-sws-ig@w3.org

Bijan Parsia wrote:

> On Saturday, November 8, 2003, at 10:41 PM, Drew McDermott wrote:
>>    [Bijan Parsia]
>>    There's two aspects of a precondition, its own logical form, and the
>>    fact that it is embedded in larger conditional (effectively). So, 
>> if a
>>    precondition is that <<My Credit line is greater than 1000>>, the 
>> form
>>    of that assertion *could* just be a regular condition. and arguably
>>    should be. It's the *relationship* between that formula and the 
>> process
>>    that adds the extra semantics, much like putting a formula in the 
>> body
>>    of a rule "changes" its semantics (*if* it is co-true with the other
>>    atoms, then the consequential atoms must be true).
>> Actually, when semantics is done right, the context of a formula
>> doesn't add any "extra semantics."  All the meaning of (if P Q) can be
>> factored into the meaning of P, the meaning of Q, and the meaning of
>> (if _ _).
> Obviously, I agree. :)
>> I sort of thought the Precondition class was essentially a typo -- a
>> side effect of too many cooks stirring that particular soup.  Why are
>> we defending its existence?
> Dunno. :)
> Monika?

Bijan and Drew,

I agree with your thoughts on this issue

Well, my only interest here was to keep all the concepts used in 
defining "a" process explicit. Normally, the "Precondition" does not 
give us anything more than what "Condition" does and the 
"hasPrecondition" property expresses the relation it has with the 
process. I am not rigid about having  the Precondition class, just for 
the sake of having it... :-)   .. But I guess a few more opinions on 
this would not harm. The only problem I had was the "precondition" 
property , that we currently have in the model

> Hmm. Well, I guess merely having a named class for the class 
> expression Condition & someValuesFrom inv(hasPrecondition, Process) 
> isn't ridiculous.
> Cheers,
> Bijan Parsia.

Monika Solanki
Software Technology Research Laboratory(STRL)
De Montfort University
Hawthorn building, H00.18
The Gateway
Leicester LE1 9BH, UK

phone: +44 (0)116 250 6170 intern: 6170
email: monika@dmu.ac.uk
web: http://www.cse.dmu.ac.uk/~monika
Received on Sunday, 9 November 2003 05:03:24 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:32:43 UTC