- From: Ken Laskey <klaskey@mitre.org>
- Date: Mon, 9 Mar 2009 10:03:00 -0400
- To: Carine Bournez <carine@w3.org>
- CC: "public-ws-semann-comments@w3.org" <public-ws-semann-comments@w3.org>
The example I give is a restriction but I am actually interested in the more general case of reusing both semantic models of property description and semantic models of values I can associate with the properties. For example, I often deal with people who are interested in software/ service lifecycle, and they would like to have a property which is lifecycle status. The challenge is depending on where they play in the service lifecycle, e.g. more interested in the development part than the deployment part, they have different, overlapping enumerations of software state. What I would like to do is have a semantic model of lifecycle that could provide a metamodel for others creating specific lifecycle enumerations. Now as I understand it, I can create a schema that includes lifecycle status and SAWSDL will support associating the lifecycle semantic model with the lifecycle status property, i.e. <element name="lifecycleStatus"> <sawsld:modelReference="http..."> </element> and in an instance I can have <lifecycleStatus>conceptual</lifecycleStatus> but I don't have an immediate way to tell someone what the semantic model is that describes "conceptual". I can't add conceptual as an enumeration value in the lifecycle semantic model because not everyone will have a "conceptual" as a prescribed value and there will be lots of other values defined over time. I certainly don't want to revise the lifecycle semantic model every time there is a new status proposed. That is where we are now and it is neither scalable nor maintainable. What I would like to have is a semantic model of each set of lifecycle values and then be able to create a mapping between them, and my guess is the lifecycleStatus semantic model would help me create the mapping. Those are the pieces I'm hoping to put together. Ken On Mar 9, 2009, at 9:03 AM, Carine Bournez wrote: > On Mon, Mar 09, 2009 at 07:24:59AM -0400, Ken Laskey wrote: >> Take as an example that a large community has an element for "color" >> and use sawsdl to point to its semantic model. In this model, color >> has its full range of typical meaning. >> >> Now I only deal with traffic lights, so my valid colors are red, >> yellow, and green, and I define a semantic model that includes that >> enumeration. You want to do a search against a data store I created >> and a valid color for you is purple. Of course, either my restricted >> enumeration or your target are both valid for the color semantic >> model. However, if you search against my data store with only >> knowledge of the color semantic model (e.g., the XML tag), you will >> never match anything because your target (i.e., the value between the >> XML start and end tags) is not in my semantic model that includes my >> restricted enumeration. >> >> So, I am looking for a way to show semantic models for values as well >> as sawsdl applied to tags in the schema definition. > > > It seems to me that the problem you describe is about adding > restrictions to a more "for global use" ontology, but at > the instance level rather than at the schema level. > Is there a particular reason for not using an enumeration as > the value type, then? ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ken Laskey MITRE Corporation, M/S H305 phone: 703-983-7934 7515 Colshire Drive fax: 703-983-1379 McLean VA 22102-7508
Received on Monday, 9 March 2009 14:03:32 UTC