Re: [OWL-S] new IOPE example #1

Bijan -

Thanks for commenting...

Bijan Parsia wrote:

> Quick response.
> 
> On Mar 31, 2004, at 2:54 AM, David Martin wrote:
> [snip]
> 
>>   <process:hasEffect>
>>     <???:Formula>
>>       <???:inLanguage rdf:datatype=
>>         "&xsd;anyURI">...swrl...</???:inLanguage>
> 
> 
> I wouldn't use a literal here. 
> The problems that faced us with 
> parameterTypes don't apply. I expect swrl et al to have uris and could 
> be made to be of type, say, LogicFormalism.

So then someone would declare the LogicFormalism class somewhere, and 
someone would also declare an instance of that class corresponding to 
SWRL (or DRS or SWRL++ or whatever) and then we'd mention that instance 
as the value of inLanguage (or whatever better name we come up with for 
that property).  Is that what you have in mind here?

> 
>>       <???:conjuncts rdf:parseType="Collection">
>>         <swrl:datavaluedPropertyAtom>
>>           <swrl:propertyPredicate rdf:resource="&arithmetic;sum"/>
>>           <swrl:argument1>
>>             <arithmetic:Pair>
>>               <first rdf:resource="#Add_In1">
>>               <second rdf:resource="#Add_In2">
>>             </arithmetic:Pair>
>>           </swrl:argument1>
>>           <swrl:argument2 rdf:resource="#Add_Out"/>
>>         </swrl:datavaluedPropertyAtom>
>>       </???:conjuncts>
>>     </???:Formula>
>>   </process:hasEffect>
>> </process:AtomicProcess>
>>
>> (1) Are we happy with having a Formula class, with properties
>> "inLanguage" and "conjuncts"?  If so, is it defined in DRS' namespace,
>> or where?  Should a value of inLanguage be a URI?
>>
>> (2) Does the formula content need to be a literal, as we have
>> discussed?  If so, how is that done?  With parsetype=Literal?  But
>> then I'm not clear about where (on what property) to put that.
> 
> 
> On some property wrapping ???:conjuncts. (well, conjuncts would need a 
> parent node then). Hmm. That makes it a touch less appealing. The 
> problem is that *our* "formula" really is a wrapper for other people's 
> "formual" with extra metadata. So a bit of repetition seems very hard to 
> avoid.

Yeah, that's what I was thinking also.

- Dave

> 
> Cheers,
> Bijan Parsia.
>

Received on Wednesday, 31 March 2004 15:00:10 UTC