Re: OWL-S process preconditions

On Jun 19, 2004, at 8:43 AM, Dónal Murtagh wrote:

>
> [snip]
>>> OK, so a precondition should be expressed as a conjunction of SWRL
>>> atoms,
>>> rather than a SWRL rule (with an antecedent and consequent). By the
>>> way, are
>>> there any examples available of SWRL being used to express process
>>> preconditions (or indeed any other OWL-S conditional expressions).
>>
>> I believe the standard examples are being augmented with example
>> preconditions, etc. Our lab should have some of the standard planning
>> domains ported to OWL-S by release time.
>
>
> What exactly do you mean by the "standard" examples, those on daml.org,

Yes. Bravo Air and Congo Books.

> or
> mindswap.org?

Well, these aren't standard, but I'm sure we'll figure out some ways to 
use preconditions and effects. We have incorporated conjunctive abox 
query into our reasoner Pellet and have done a prelilminary integration 
with the JSHOP2 planner, so we're in a position to actually use such 
preconditions and effects :) I'm sure the OWL-S API will support 
evaluation of them.

> Also, what are the standard planning domains?

Mostly stuff from the planning competition. I think Evren worked up the 
rover domain.

I should at that users and contributers to the OWL-S API are welcome. 
Evren Sirin is the main developer, but he'll be working frantically on 
his PhD proposal this summer. Everything is pretty liberally open 
source, however, and we'll happily try to incorporate patches.

Cheers,
Bijan Parsia.

Received on Saturday, 19 June 2004 10:06:15 UTC