Re: Doubt about Parameter during execution

Hi,
 
Thinking in parameterType as a *user specified type*, could I say that a Parameter can have just one type? I mean, I can declare a Parameter just with one parameterType sentence...
 
Continuing talking about Parameters, could I, or is it good (or not) to state something like...?
 
Output X parameterType Y
Y rdf:type Parameter
 
For instance, in the Congo process example, there is any explicitly Parameter declaration. In my case, I have one output that is of type of a class with one property. Could I declare its class as a subclass of Parameter and define the parameterType for the type I need? Is it correct, wrong, strange, perfect? Is it also a purpose of the Parameter class?
 
Thank one more time,
 
Tatiana.

Bijan Parsia <bparsia@isr.umd.edu> wrote:
I'm not following the whole discussion, but...

On Jan 5, 2005, at 2:14 PM, David Martin wrote:
> Evren Sirin wrote:
[snip]
>> Yes, exactly. What I had in mind was a process description like this:
>> 

>> 

>> 

>> 
>> rdf:datatype="&xsd;anyURI">&xsd;#string

>> 

>> 

>> 

>> 

>> 
>> rdf:datatype="&xsd;anyURI">&books;#Book
 
>> 

>> 

>> 

>>> I think the parameterType makes confusion in my mind!!!! In the 
>>> same way, did now the sintax of Parameter. As described at 
>>> Process.owl file, a Parameter can have at minimum one parameterType. 
>>> What does it mean?

It can mean a few things (for example, that the type of the value is 
the conjunction of the types), but I believe we meant for it to be 
compatible with sub/super typing. No parameter has only one type. 
(Probably no parameter.)

>>> If it has more than one type, doesn't it have to have also the same 
>>> number of parameterValue? (I thought it as an structured parameter) 
>>> How can one Parameter have more than one type?
>> Hmm, that I don't know. I think that it should be a cardinality (not 
>> minCardinality) restriction.
>
> I also think it should be a cardinality, and I don't remember anyone 
> advocating minCardinality.

You forgot :) We had a lengthy discussion about this.

If you interpret it as syntax (i.e., the *user specified* type) then a 
cardinality could be appropriate. If it is the *actual type* (in the 
sense that it should eventually resolve to the rdf:type of a value) 
then, minCardinality is required. The understanding at the time of the 
design was the latter.

> So, assuming no objections, let's fix this in the 1.2 release.

I would object. Clarifying text is good, though. Also, I presume we 
can fix the value.

Note that the connection with parameterType and parameterValue is all 
extra owl, so we do need to be clear about it.

Cheers,
Bijan Parsia.


		
---------------------------------
Yahoo! Acesso Grátis - Internet rápida e grátis. Instale o discador do Yahoo! agora.