RE: XG W3pm Scope

Excerpts from Bohms, H.M. \\\\(Michel\\\\)'s message of Wed Jun 04 03:29:34 -0400 2008:
> 
> 
> 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:)

OWL2 n-ary datatype predicates, as I presently understand them, allow the 2nd
but not the 1st of yr examples. They have to apply to properties of a single
individual -- an instance of, say, StandardFacade, -- rather than to different
individual (instances of Toilet and Stair), though I suppose there might be a
perverse modeling trick to get around that (well, maybe not -- have to think
about it).

> 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.

Yes, a perfectly reasonable choice IMO.

> 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.

I suspect OWL2 may give some means to move *some* more stuff into standard
infrastructure, though I'd be surprised if you could get all the way
there. I don't know if this is game where incremental wins are still wins or
not. YMMV.

> 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.

I'm not sure, but I think this gets toward integrity constraint semantics,
where a class description acts like a template or pattern that thing must
satisfy, rather than a way for the reasoner to infer new information.

Cheers,
Kendall

Received on Wednesday, 4 June 2008 12:19:46 UTC