Re: Something strange in OWL-S Upper Ontology

De Furio Ivano wrote:

> Hi, to all
> 
> I'm interested in automatic Discovery of Semantized Web Services.
> I'm trying to apply OWL-S upper ontology for Services, to discover the 
> semantized services.

Great.

> But, working with owl-s rel. 1.0 I founded something  that seems to be 
> strange.
> 
> 1) In http://www.daml.org/services/owl-s/1.0/Profile.owl , I founded the 
> following declaration of "has_process" property.
> 
>   <!--
>     has_process is a pointer the process that is associated with the
>     service.
>     -->
> 
>   <owl:FunctionalProperty rdf:ID="has_process">
>     <rdfs:domain rdf:resource="#Profile"/>
>     <rdfs:range rdf:resource="&process;#Process"/>
>   </owl:FunctionalProperty>

I believe the above is legal.  However, I believe it will cause the 
ontology to be in OWL Full.

For this reason, in the 1.1 release (soon to be announced) it has 
already been changed to this:

  <owl:ObjectProperty rdf:ID="has_process">
     <rdfs:domain rdf:resource="#Profile"/>
     <rdfs:range rdf:resource="&process;#Process"/>
   </owl:ObjectProperty>
<owl:FunctionalProperty rdf:about="#has_process"/>

> 
> But on http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-ref/#FunctionalProperty-def I read that 
> owl:FunctionalProperty is a "Global cardinality constraints on 
> properties" not an other ObjectProperty, so It seems that the rigth form 
> to define "has_process" should be, something like that:
> 
>   <owl:ObjectProperty rdf:ID="has_process">
>     <rdf:type    rdf:resource="&owl;FunctionalProperty" />
>     <rdfs:domain rdf:resource="#Profile"/>
>     <rdfs:range rdf:resource="&process;#Process"/>
>   </owl:ObjectProperty>
> 
> 2) Another, strange thing (at least for me) is that both ontology 
> http://www.daml.org/services/owl-s/1.0/Profile.owl and 
> http://www.daml.org/services/owl-s/1.0/Process.owl define hasParameter 
> as a owl:ObjectProperty with a well defined domain. But, hasInput and 
> hasOutput, was defined as subPropertyOf hasParameter without a defined 
> domain.
> 
> I wasn't able to find that subPropertyOf implies a domain inheritance, 
> so maibe should be better to repeat the domain.

Yes, subPropertyOf does imply domain inheritance, so it's okay not to 
repeat the domain.

Thanks for your comments.

Regards,
David Martin

> 
> 
> Best regards, Ivano
> 
> Sorry, for my English.
> 
> Ing. Ivano De Furio
> ServiceWare
> 
> Atos Origin
> Via Antiniana 2/A - 80078 Pozzuoli (NA)
> Italy
> 
> Phone  *        + 39 081 6103  347
> Fax       *     + 39 081 6103 200
> e-mail *        ivano.defurio@atosorigin.com
> Web             http://www.atosorigin.com
> 
>

Received on Friday, 9 July 2004 16:09:41 UTC