Re: [OWL-S]Avoiding Lists

On Feb 3, 2004, at 2:23 PM, Pat Hayes wrote:

>> If OWL-S ontologies are to be OWL-DL, then we must eliminate all 
>> "extraneous" use of the RDF collection vocabulary. (That is, we must 
>> only use rdf:List and friends in certain syntactic situations and 
>> never as a user level modeling construct.) There are three places 
>> where we do or might use collections:
>>
>> 1) As the value of the components property, especially for indicating 
>> sequences or unordered sets of processes. Note that simply avoiding 
>> subclassing rdf:List isn't sufficient. The mere use of lists puts us 
>> in OWL Full.
>
> Restrictions like this were SUCH a bad idea. Sigh. The torture that 
> you are now going through illustrates the reasons why.  The entire 
> OWL-S process is going to be warped in order to save the tool builders 
> the trouble of having to do some intelligent parsing.
[snip]

>> c) Do something exceedingly clever with literals. Literals already 
>> *have* structure (both xml and the simpleType, list).

I forgot d) encourage DL tool builders to handle some relaxations on 
the Collection restrictions. Preferably by publishing a clear 
description of those relaxations and the consequences thereof.

>> Any thoughts, preferences, screams of pain anyone would like to share?
>
> Thought: Serves you right for trying to fit into OWL-DL
>
> Preference: use option (a). There is almost no semantics associated 
> with rdf:List etc. that couldnt be associated with owl:List or even 
> fred:List. To hell with parseType, its a crock anyway.
>
> Option (b) is more work for no perceptible advantage, and option (c) 
> is a Really Bad Idea.  Really Really Bad.

:) I thought you'd like that one.

> Screams of pain: I would be emitting them if I thought that I had to 
> use OWL-DL.

Poor Pat. Oh wait...:)

The consensus of today's telecon, however much Drew squawked, is some 
variant of (a), though maybe with some helpful scripts to ease the 
pain.

Cheers,
Bijan Parsia.

Received on Tuesday, 3 February 2004 15:31:40 UTC