- From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@isr.umd.edu>
- Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2005 18:49:43 -0400
- To: David Martin <martin@AI.SRI.COM>
- Cc: public-sws-ig@w3.org, Daniel Elenius <elenius@csl.sri.com>
On Jun 23, 2005, at 6:37 PM, David Martin wrote: > Bijan Parsia wrote: >> On Jun 23, 2005, at 11:27 AM, David Martin wrote: >>> Bijan Parsia wrote: >> [snip] >>>> But we're not really using SWLR, so what's the diff? >>> >>> >>> Sure, we are using SWRL. >> Not really. AFAIK, we aren't using any SWRL rules and we aren't using >> the SWRL semantics *per se*. We're ripping off some of the >> syntax...which is perhaps the most fluid bit. > > We have arranged for service preconditions, effects, and > control-construct conditions to be specified using the RDF-based > syntax (by and large, see below). We have one or more tools that > support the user in constructing these expressions. Some of us are > designing and planning to build systems that load these expressions > into a SWRL reasoner and check the satisfaction of the expressions in > connection with enacting and reasoning about services (and for all I > know, some folks may have already built such systems). So to me it's > quite reasonable to say that we are using SWRL. What I mean is that it seems unlikely that an OWL-S document is "just" a SWRL ontology. There are other assumptions built in that require some manipulation before you can feed it to a SWRL tool (not sure about the editors). So, this is just a bit more you have to do before feeding it in. But really, it's overall marginal. I think there's more value in being out of the box "OWL DL" compliant than out of the box OWL Full and SWRL compliant. Your milage may vary. > I'm aware of the issues. E.g., we've stretched things a bit by using > AtomLists outside of rules. (But by and large we are using the syntax > in accord with the spec., and the way we are going beyond that is > straightforward.) The semantics talks about what it means for an > atom to be satisfied and I believe it requires only a straightforward > tweak to a SWRL reasoner (or possibly no tweak at all, depending on > how the reasoner is designed) to test the satisfaction of an AtomList > independently of any rule. There is some unhappiness about including > the unquoted SWRL expressions in our OWL files, but that particular > debate isn't about whether or not we are *using* SWRL. Again, all I meant is that you would not expect an OWL-S document with preconditions to be, in itself, a SWRL document, to be processed without any further preprocessing. Or, to put it another way, I don't think we're writing OWL-S descriptions "in SWRL". For whatever that's worth. > I have a feeling if DAML+OIL / OWL had never been "used" in any > "stretched" ways during its "fluid" days a good deal of interesting > work might never have been done with it. Too many negatives for me :) You might be agreeing with me, or you might not, afaict. I'm suggesting being fluid on SWRL, which is in its fluid days. Another way of putting it is that I believe there are more OWL DL tools and it's easier to get SWRL folks to add extensions. But that's just a empirical prediction. > Anyway, no need to debate further. Why don't we just agree to > disagree about what the meaning of "use" is? I certainly think you read me differently that I intended, so if you insist on that read, then I guess we'll have to so agree. The other thing y'all can just do is say, "hey, this use of OWL Full is trivial, yet convenient; all OWL DL tools ought to respect it". That might get traction. Cheers, Bijan.
Received on Thursday, 23 June 2005 22:49:51 UTC