- From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@isr.umd.edu>
- Date: Sun, 28 Mar 2004 20:00:28 -0500
- To: Katia Sycara <katia@cs.cmu.edu>
- Cc: public-sws-ig@w3.org
On Mar 28, 2004, at 7:25 PM, Katia Sycara wrote: > Bijan, > Given that we aim for wide applicability of OWL-S, we should be > prescriptive and advisive. > --Katia Hmm. That wasn't the line of reasoning I was expecting. And I tend to think of 'prescriptive' as some sort of contrary to 'advisive' (which is a word I made up :)). So, what sort of prescriptions and/or advice do you think we should give? Sample prescription: Do not have effects that are complementary to the entailments of your KB. (Similarly, don't have entailments of your KB that are complementsOf some effects.) (Advising version: Effects which are the complement of some entailment of the KB may result in counterintuitive situations. [Insert example where an axiom entails, say, that you always have such and such a credit card, but some service has an effect that the card is canceled. This isn't *incoherent*, but it may be a bit surprising.]) I guess it wasn't clear, but if we're not just letting chips fall as they may, I would like some feedback on what we should say. Cheers, Bijan Parsia.
Received on Sunday, 28 March 2004 21:03:03 UTC