Re: Small problem with Expression.owl

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