- From: David Martin <martin@AI.SRI.COM>
- Date: Sat, 24 Jul 2004 23:40:27 -0700
- To: Evren Sirin <evren@cs.umd.edu>
- Cc: zze-VALLEE Mathieu RD-TECH-GRE <mathieu.vallee@rd.francetelecom.com>, public-sws-ig@w3.org
Evren Sirin wrote: > David Martin wrote: > >>> Is there a special reason not to repeat the domain (apart from avoiding >>> redundancy) ? >> >> >> >> Not to my knowledge; that is, it's just to avoid redundancy. >> >>> When I edit services using Protege (and OWL plugin), it seems that I >>> must add the domain for hasInput and hasOutput properties. If not, >>> Protege only allows me to use the hasParameter property (it does not >>> include reasoning to deduce this kind of domain inheritance). >> >> >> >> It's a good point. This is not the first time that a tool-building >> consideration may lead us to alter our notions of what is good style. >> >> In the 1.1 Beta release (just about ready to be announced) I'm going >> to go ahead and add the domain explicitly for the benefit of tools >> (not everywhere, but in the crucial IOPE properties).. But this is >> somewhat provisional; that is, if there are any important objections >> then it's possible these declarations will be removed. > > > > I'm not aginst these domain restrictions being added but it is hard to > decide which ones should be added and which ones not. This is not an > OWL-S specific issue and it seems that the tool needs to be updated not > the ontology. I believe if a request is made, this feature can easily be > added to Protege. As a side note, the ontology browser/editor SWOOP [1] > we have developed at Mindswap would already show these kind of > inheritances on domain and range. If you download the latest release you > need to set the reasoner to Pellet to see this effect, if you download > the nightly-build of SWOOP the default RDF-S reasoner should also > display the same information. I agree. In general, tools should become more capable, rather than expecting users to adopt special coding conventions that go beyond the requirements and practices specified by the language designers. Thanks, David > > Regards, > Evren > > [1] http://www.mindswap.org/2004/SWOOP/ > >> >> Regards, >> David Martin >> >>> However, this kind of troubles may be solved by the (future) OWL-S >>> editor :-) >>> >>> Regards, >>> Mathieu >> >> >> >> >> >
Received on Sunday, 25 July 2004 02:40:42 UTC