Re: [OWL-S] Process subClassOf IntervalEvent

Bijan Parsia wrote:

> 
> I notice that:
> 
> <owl:Class rdf:ID="Process">
>   <rdfs:comment> The most general class of processes </rdfs:comment>
>   <rdfs:subClassOf rdf:resource="&time;#IntervalEvent"/>
> ...
> 
> So, it follows that AtomicProcesses aren't instants, which, while I 
> accept that, could perhaps complicate some aspects of reasoning with 
> them. (E.g., while it's great if you know that an AP is going to take up 
> a certain amount of time, since you may be trying to figure out the 
> overall time for a some composition, but you typically don't want, i 
> take it, (relevant) change to happen during the AP (at least, from 
> "inside" the AP).)
> 
> More importantly, I don't think Processes, as we've currently defined 
> them (i.e., as Process *definitions*) are TemporalThings at all. For 
> example, it makes no sene to say that one definition is *before* another 
> (it does make sense to say that this or that Process occurrence is 
> before that other one, or that this Process execution is before this 
> other one).

OK, later today I've planning to remove both
     Process subclass IntervalEvent
and
     ControlConstruct subclass IntervalEvent

from the developing 1.1 Process.owl file
(which, please note, is an incomplete, inconsistent *draft* at present).

I've also removed the cardinality restrictions on temporal properties, 
which were based on these subclass relationships.

(This removal of the time ontology use) is one of the more regrettable 
aspects of our switch to PAI.)

Of course, if and when we develop an ontology of process "execution 
traces" (as we have discussed in the past), we can again use the time 
ontology in this way, with execution traces.

In the meantime, I'm not clear what, if anything, we can say about time 
in Process.owl.

Feng, do you have any guidance regarding this?

Thanks,
David

Received on Monday, 3 May 2004 21:31:00 UTC