- From: Daniel Elenius <daele@ida.liu.se>
- Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2004 10:55:10 +0200
- To: public-sws-ig@w3.org
I think the OWL-S ontology needs some more disjointness axioms on a lot of its subclasses. This would help the reasoner a lot. For example, if an instance of InputBinding is used as the filler for a withOutput property, which has OutputBinding as range, no inconsistency will be detected, unless InputBinding and OutputBinding are declared to be disjoint. Instead, the instance will be forced into the OutputBinding class, now being an instance of both OutputBinding and InputBinding. This causes much more subtle and hard-to-detect bugs. Since everything is assumed to be non-disjoint by default, I think we should declare things to be disjoint wherever they are meant to be. Also, if I have understood things correctly, disjointness does not complicate reasoning much (unlike subclassing or number restrictions for example) so there is really no reason not to put these things in there. In Expression.owl: DRS-Expression, KIF-Expression, SWRL-Expression - these should be disjoint. In Grounding.owl: WsdlInputMessageMap, WsdlOutputMessageMap subclasses of List: WsdlInputMessageMapList, WsdlOutputMessageMapList, ControlConstructList, ControlConstructBag Process.owl: InputBinding, OutputBinding All the control constructs should be disjoint (this requires the now deprecated ProcessComponent to be removed in order to work I think). Less important ones: ProfileAdditionalParameters: NAICS and UNSPC should be disjoint the subclasses of ServiceParameter (AverageResponseTime, GeographicRadius, MasResponseTime) should be disjoint time-entry.owl: InstantEvent and IntervalEvent should probably be disjoint. Same with Instant and Interval.
Received on Wednesday, 22 September 2004 08:55:19 UTC