- From: Charlie Abela <abcharl@keyworld.net>
- Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2004 22:37:20 +0200
- To: "David Martin" <martin@AI.SRI.COM>
- Cc: "Public-Sws-Ig@W3. Org" <public-sws-ig@w3.org>
Thanks David, So can someone explain what an effect actually refers to and how will users (possibly not technical enough to understand the difference) know what an effect represents and which effect to attach to some WS description? Cause as described in OWL-S up to now it is still unclear how this thing can be handled. Regards, Charlie -----Original Message----- From: David Martin [mailto:martin@AI.SRI.COM] Sent: 14 April 2004 21:17 To: Charlie Abela Cc: Public-Sws-Ig@W3. Org Subject: Re: Effects in OWL-S Charlie Abela wrote: > With all these ideas going on about preconditions and effects in OWL-S it is > quite difficult to capture the general idea of how to define actual effects > in WSs. > > I had the impression that an effect was something that will become true when > the WS has executed but that also brought some changes to the world, but now > there is talk of making use of post-condition instead. Actually from the > readings that I found, these two words seem to be used interchangeably, > depending on the research context, and thus I always presumed that they are > somewhat synonymous. > > What are the views of the OWL-S ppl on this? Cause with all these somewhat > radical changes being proposed it is quite difficult to get people to > actually make use of these ontologies. Hi Charlie - I don't view the recent questions / suggestions (raised by me mostly) as radical. They're mainly part of an effort to get greater clarity about how the "effects" property is to be used. This effort has come up in the process of working on some new examples. I sort-of suggested renaming "effect" to "postcondition" in OWL-S (because for me "postcondition" is more general), but that was not meant as a radical change. And if most people view them as synonymous then it's not likely that we'll make that change. Hopefully some additional discussion on this list will lead to greater clarity. Will there every be a stable set of > OWL-S ontologies? Sure. I think most of the remaining "instability" has to do with these very things - expressing preconditions and effects - and we're making very significant progress in these areas for the next release. (Note also that some of the instability has to do with the ongoing evolution of the rules language(s) that we're drawing on in these areas.) Regards, David > > Some time back there was a long discussion on the topic; I guess some > clarification is now due. > > Regards > > Charlie > > > > > > >
Received on Wednesday, 14 April 2004 16:37:50 UTC