RE: XG W3pm Scope

Dear Kendall,

Just some extra info on our BIM work, esp. the PMO upper ontology from SWOP:

In SWOP we use our own devised Rule Model explcitly modelling assertions ("the stair width should be smaller than the toilet width in that groundfloor of this house" etc. and derivations (kind of scripts) like "the height of a façade is always 2/3 of the length of that façade"; the first are checked the latter are executed (they can all be mixed given quite some power and at the same time end-user/modellers headache:)

Surely, we looked at existing stuff like SWRL but although we saw that these things were way more formal/better defined they had too limited power; hence our own more business related rule model.

Clearly, if there are ways to NOT do it ourselves but move this functionality to standard reasoners this would be our preference...we'd like to saty as close to existing standard as possible.

If we not consider rule language/reasoners for that....there were also issues for PMO wrt owl-level reasoners like eg for the automaitic execution of hasValue constraints. For example we can define variant classes for products that have a fixed (class-level) value; eg a catalogue item having a price in euro's. In our system this is still a class that can have many individuals all having the same price value. Clearly we can specify in owl that the price is always x euro's but you need some reasoner to actually MAKE it that value.
 
Cheers Michel
 

-----Original Message-----
From: kendall@clarkparsia.com [mailto:kendall@clarkparsia.com] 
Sent: 04 June 2008 03:36
To: Graves,Henson
Cc: public-xg-w3pm@w3.org; Bohms, H.M. (Michel)
Subject: RE: XG W3pm Scope

On Tuesday, June 3, 2008 4:51pm, "Graves, Henson" <henson.graves@lmco.com> said:

> DL and related tools are evolving (Motik's structured objects and 
> integrity checking, for example), and we need to keep this in mind.

This brings up an issue. I'm very new to PM, though I think I understand the basic idea. I've been reading about BIM (Building Information Modeling), which is partially related, from the IT perspective, to PM, and I got some new stuff about BIM today from Michel, so I think I'm starting to understand that.

What I'm not clear about, and this is related to Henson's comment above about integrity constraints, is whether the *point* of having ontologies in PM is to use a reasoner (of whatever sort) as a kind of expressive constraint checker, in which case you want something like Motikian (or some alternative) integrity constraint semantics.

That is, as Henson suggests, what you want to *do* in or with an Ontology-Based Management System or in an Ontology-Drive Architecture is also important. If so, we really should gather use cases & requirements, not simply about expressivity in common PM modeling tasks, but also about what those models are intended to support, w/r/t reasoning services.

I think in this XG we should put together a Use Cases & Requirements doc that covers both modeling *and* reasoning services, that is, what sort of computational processes (if any) the modeling should support. Integrity constraint checking may or may not be one such -- it's a commonly requested feature for Pellet -- but we need to figure out where consensus may (or may not) be for both modeling *and* reasoning.

Cheers,
Kendall Clark



This e-mail and its contents are subject to the DISCLAIMER at http://www.tno.nl/disclaimer/email.html

Received on Wednesday, 4 June 2008 07:29:27 UTC