W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ws-semann@w3.org > May 2006

Re: Some items for discussion (Issue 8: Conflict Resolution Rules)

From: Rama Akkiraju <akkiraju@us.ibm.com>
Date: Fri, 12 May 2006 14:58:28 -0400
To: Joel Farrell <joelf@us.ibm.com>
Cc: Holger Lausen <holger.lausen@deri.org>, SAWSDL WG <public-ws-semann@w3.org>, public-ws-semann-request@w3.org
Message-ID: <OF25BBCC72.28EA5FDB-ON8525716C.0063DB5B-8525716C.00683B66@us.ibm.com>

Joel, My comments below.

public-ws-semann-request@w3.org wrote on 05/12/2006 10:53:21 AM:

> One approach is to see if extensions to the modelReference approach can
> address the issue.  Rama proposed using multiple URIs as had been
> for a different purpose in issue 5.   This might work, but I will point
> a few questions.
> -- How do you tell if the URI's point to multiple annotations for this
> field, or an alternative concept in another semantic modelling language
> was discussed in issue 5)?

I don't think this should be an issue. I could have an element called
'person' in a WSDL having three annotations. First annotation could say
'ns1:Human', second annotation could say 'ns1:Resource', and third
annotation could say 'ns2:SpiritualBeing'. The first two are from the same
model and the third one is from a different model. It should not matter if
the annotations come from the same model or from a different model as far
as saying something about the semantics of the element 'person'. They
should all be treated independently. The same resolution that we arrived at
for issue # 3 ("identifying type of a model") applies as far as knowing
which semantic model the annotations come from. It's up to the tools to
figure out how they want to use these multiple annotations.

> -- Should the list of references be treated as a conjunction?  Does that
> handle all the cases covered by the more general schemaMapping approach
> would we have to introduce operators (I hope we don't have to do that).

I think semantic annotations should be treated independent of one another
with no assumed relationships. It's up to the domain model to specify how
the concepts are related. Tools can inference the domain model and figure
out how they are related. For example, in the above example, there may be a
relation between 'ns1:Human' and 'ns1:Resource' in the domain model. It
should be left up to the semantic matching engines to inference and figure
out how they want to use it.

Rama Akkiraju
Received on Friday, 12 May 2006 19:00:07 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:36:12 UTC