Re: [OWL-S] DLization of 1.1

Thanks, Bijan for all the work on DLization of the OWL-S files.  These
changes will be included in our next release (1.1).

I've just uploaded them to our release preparation site, and I took the
liberty to remove your "BJP" inline comments on minor issues where I
don't expect any further discussion (which is true of most of the changes).

Also I placed your shadow list ontology here:
   "http://www.daml.org/services/owl-s/1.1/generic/ObjectList.owl

and adjusted the entity declarations accordingly.  (I don't necessarily see that as 
a permanent location, but it's the best I can come up with for now.)

Here are a few comments ...

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.

yep.

>     
>     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?


I only have a very weak preference about this; which is to leave things
more explicit.  The redundancy doesn't bother me.  Neither does the
increased chance for error (that is, it doesn't bother me in this particular 
context).  Anyway, I've left it explicit for now.

> 
>     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?


I assume so, but I also expect we might load either drs.owl or
swrl++.owl or swrl-for-services.owl (or whatever), which in turn will
import SWRL.

>     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??)

That's how it was initially conceived.  Certainly that can be revisited now.

>     computedInput, computedPreconditoin, computedOutput, et al are now 
> an ObjectProperty as their ranges         indicates (will these end up 
> like Conditions?, i.e,. formulas?) 

Yes, I think so.

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.

Agree.

>     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.

This idea of a binding was simply to show the correspondence between a value passed 
to a service invocation (in a Perform) and the input parameter that it goes into. 
Anyway, these particular constructs are being revisited currently, as you know.

>           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.

I guess I lean a little towards
   rdf:type FunctionalProperty
but only a little.

Thanks again,
David

> 
> 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 Tuesday, 13 April 2004 21:30:38 UTC