Re: [OWL-S] new IOPE example #1

OK, here's a revision of the Add example that takes into account recent 
comments in this same thread.  Still not sure what namespace we'll be 
using for the ???'s - but I think it'll be "drs".  Drew, does this seem 
compatible with DRS directions?

- David

<process:AtomicProcess rdf:id="Add">
   <process:hasInput>
     <Input rdf:id="Add_In1">
       <parameterType
          rdf:datatype="&xsd;anyURI">xsd:float</parameterType>
     </Input>
   <process:hasInput rdf:id="Add_In2">
     <Input>
       <parameterType
          rdf:datatype="&xsd;anyURI">xsd:float</parameterType>
     </Input>
   </process:hasInput>
   <process:hasOutput>
     <Output rdf:id="Add_Out">
       <parameterType
          rdf:datatype="&xsd;anyURI">xsd:float</parameterType>
     </Output>
   </process:hasOutput>
   <process:hasEffect>
     <???:LogicalExpression>
       <???:inLanguage><LogicFormalism
         rdf:resource="&lf;swrl/></???:inLanguage>
       <???:expression rdf:parseType="literal">
         <???:Formula rdf:parseType="Collection">
           <swrl:datavaluedPropertyAtom>
             <swrl:propertyPredicate rdf:resource="&arithmetic;sum"/>
             <swrl:argument1>
               <arithmetic:Pair>
                 <first rdf:resource="#Add_In1">
                 <second rdf:resource="#Add_In2">
               </arithmetic:Pair>
             </swrl:argument1>
             <swrl:argument2 rdf:resource="#Add_Out"/>
           </swrl:datavaluedPropertyAtom>
         </???:Formula>
       <???:expression rdf:parseType="literal">
     <???:LogicalExpression>
   </process:hasEffect>
</process:AtomicProcess>

- David

Bijan Parsia wrote:

> Quick response.
> 
> On Mar 31, 2004, at 2:54 AM, David Martin wrote:
> [snip]
> 
>>   <process:hasEffect>
>>     <???:Formula>
>>       <???:inLanguage rdf:datatype=
>>         "&xsd;anyURI">...swrl...</???:inLanguage>
> 
> 
> I wouldn't use a literal here. The problems that faced us with 
> parameterTypes don't apply. I expect swrl et al to have uris and could 
> be made to be of type, say, LogicFormalism.
> 
>>       <???:conjuncts rdf:parseType="Collection">
>>         <swrl:datavaluedPropertyAtom>
>>           <swrl:propertyPredicate rdf:resource="&arithmetic;sum"/>
>>           <swrl:argument1>
>>             <arithmetic:Pair>
>>               <first rdf:resource="#Add_In1">
>>               <second rdf:resource="#Add_In2">
>>             </arithmetic:Pair>
>>           </swrl:argument1>
>>           <swrl:argument2 rdf:resource="#Add_Out"/>
>>         </swrl:datavaluedPropertyAtom>
>>       </???:conjuncts>
>>     </???:Formula>
>>   </process:hasEffect>
>> </process:AtomicProcess>
>>
>> (1) Are we happy with having a Formula class, with properties
>> "inLanguage" and "conjuncts"?  If so, is it defined in DRS' namespace,
>> or where?  Should a value of inLanguage be a URI?
>>
>> (2) Does the formula content need to be a literal, as we have
>> discussed?  If so, how is that done?  With parsetype=Literal?  But
>> then I'm not clear about where (on what property) to put that.
> 
> 
> On some property wrapping ???:conjuncts. (well, conjuncts would need a 
> parent node then). Hmm. That makes it a touch less appealing. The 
> problem is that *our* "formula" really is a wrapper for other people's 
> "formual" with extra metadata. So a bit of repetition seems very hard to 
> avoid.
> 
> Cheers,
> Bijan Parsia.
>

Received on Tuesday, 6 April 2004 13:35:08 UTC