RE: [OWL-S] Negative effects/delete lists

Bijan,
 Given that we aim for wide applicability of OWL-S, we should be
prescriptive and advisive.
 --Katia

-----Original Message-----
From: public-sws-ig-request@w3.org [mailto:public-sws-ig-request@w3.org] On
Behalf Of Bijan Parsia
Sent: Sunday, March 28, 2004 5:33 PM
To: public-sws-ig@w3.org
Subject: [OWL-S] Negative effects/delete lists


I'm trying to fulfill some action items, esp. writing up some IOPE 
stuff.

One thing that we've not explicitly dealt with is negative 
effects/deletions. If we're allowing SWRL as the language of PEs, then 
we're allowing for lots of complications (to say the least).

(For example, it's very easy to have facts that are entailed by the kb, 
say, a subclass axiom. It takes a fair bit of care to ensure that none 
of those facts are negated in effect lists. Allowing them to appear 
negated in effects lists opens up some interesting problems.)

(Note that the "negative effects" could be positive literals, given the 
type of negation OWL and SWRL allow.0

Should we just let the chips fall? Or should we try to be a bit more 
prescriptive? Or advisive?

Cheers,
Bijan Parsia.

Received on Sunday, 28 March 2004 19:25:53 UTC