- From: Daniel Elenius <daele@ida.liu.se>
- Date: Wed, 07 Apr 2004 08:50:24 +0200
- To: public-sws-ig@w3.org
Bijan, Just a couple of small points on your new List: 1) the rest property should have List as its range as well as domain. 2) OWL DL doesn't allow renaming built-in rdf, rdfs or owl classes or properties[1], so they have to be called something other than List/first/rest. Is this list construct going to be used in OWL-S or is the issue not settled? Regards, /Daniel [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-owl-ref-20040210/ Appendix E, first point Bijan Parsia wrote: > > Here's some notes from my DLization efforts. Thanks to those who went > before :) (e.g., Sean and Peter) > > The files are at: > http://www.mindswap.org/~bparsia/ontologies/sws/owls1.1/ > > They will be migrated to daml.org soon. > > My comments on just about every change are inline in xml comments > starting with "BJP:" > > Methodology: > I worked out fixes on my own first, then compared with other like > minded efforts. (Still have to double check some) > I checked species with Pellet and with the WonderWeb species > validator. > I did also try to do minor improvements as I went along (e.g., > adding xml:bases). > I tried to test for consistency, unsatisfiable concepts, etc. but > the pellet web service kept timing out on me > for grounding. I'll follow up eventually. > > Things that would be nice: > To see if the Protege OWL plugin can load these. > Test with various reasoners and other editors. > > > time-entry.owl: > seems to have gotten an xml:base, yay! > > Service.owl: > Use of rdfs:Resource in a domain. I just eliminated the domain > claim as it's implied away. > > I would like to remove the redundant global restrictions on the > inverse property, but I recongnize that it might be helpful to > have them explicit for dumber tools and for human readers. Any strong > thoughts one way or the > other? > > Added an xml:base > > Process.owl: > Oy! > Added xml:base > Changed the &xsd; entity declaration to include the #. Changed the > one ref (&xsd;#boolean) to match > Added a &swrl; entity declaration. Are we going to use the SWRL > ontology? > Added type owl:Ontology to the import. > Replace parameterType with new DatatypeProperty as indicated in my > prior email. > Cleaned up Process cardinality claim. > hasParticipant is now an ObjectProperty (why is this a > subPropertyOf hasParameter??) > computedInput, computedPreconditoin, computedOutput, et al are now > an ObjectProperty as their ranges indicates (will these end up > like Conditions?, i.e,. formulas?) The range is &owl;#Thing, which, IMHO > should be surpressed as it's redundant *and* we're likely to > want to replace it with something > appropriate. > I've added a minimal "Shadow list" vocabulary, to handle process > componant bag, et al. This isn't > complete, in the senses that 1) I've not worked it up into a > full ontology and 2) I've not made it > useful for defining parameterTypes, and 3) I've not done > anything toward parseType=Collection > sugar. > Binding was missing appropriate property nodes. I added > subClassOfs. Should be checked with > author to see if that expresses intentions. Actually, I'm not > sure what's up here. BInding has > exaclty one formal and actual parameter? Don't quite get it. > Input and Output Bindings needed subClassOfs. Simimlar > issues with OutputBinding. > > The W3C RDF validator is still better than pellet or wonderweb at > catching these rdfy problems. > > Bunch more rdf:Property to ObjectProperties. > > Grounding.owl > Added a type Ontology to the import. > Changed the &xsd; entity to include the hash. Would like that to > be the style > Fixed a buncha cardinality bugs > Added objectproperty decls to all the functionalproperties > I adopted the idiom of always using the fundemental type > (Data|ObjectProperty) as the typed node > bearing the rdf:ID, and then add, outside the "definition" > various qualifying typed nodes, e.g.,: > <owl:ObjectProperty rdf:ID="owlsProcess"> > <rdfs:comment> > ..... > </owl:ObjectProperty> > <owl:FunctionalProperty rdf:about="#owlsProcess"/> > This seems more readable and editable. > I would like to convert the existing rdf:type FunctionalProp > to this style. The main annoyance is if you > change the name of the property. Either way, we should be > consistent. > > Profile.owl: > > Added xml:base > Upgraded &xsd; > Fixed cardinality > Fixed missing object properties, etc. > > ***** > Bugs in the validators: > > Both Pellet and wonderweb pass: > <owl:Restriction owl:cardinality="1"> > <owl:onProperty rdf:resource="#owlsProcess"/> > </owl:Restriction> > > WonderWeb doesn't seem to do any datatype checking at all, even on > cardinalities. > > WonderWeb passes: > <owl:imports> > <owl:Ontology rdf:resource="&processImport;"/> > </owl:imports> > > (Should be rdf:about, or the like.) > > Cheers, > Bijan Parsia. >
Received on Wednesday, 7 April 2004 02:50:17 UTC