- From: Sheila McIlraith <sam@ksl.Stanford.EDU>
- Date: Tue, 2 Sep 2003 10:47:39 -0700 (PDT)
- To: lsp <lsp@is.pku.edu.cn>
- Cc: www-ws@w3.org
Dear Liu, You are quite right that since DAML-S is a DAML+OIL ontology, and DAML+OIL has a well-defined semantics, so too does DAML-S have a well-defined semantic. The problem is that DAML+OIL is not sufficiently expressive to designate all and only the *intended interpretations* of DAML-S. Given the DAML+OIL semantics of DAML-S there are some models ("models" in the model-theoretic semantic sense) of the theory that are unintended interpretations of the ontology. This is because there are things in the DAML-S ontology (particularly in the process model) that cannot be fully expressed in the DAML+OIL language. Thus we need to appeal to a translation to a richer language with a well-defined semantics (such as first-order logic (situation calculus) or Petri nets) to get the expressiveness we need. Regards, Sheila McIlraith On Tue, 2 Sep 2003, lsp wrote: > > > Hi, > > There have papers describing the semantic of DAML-S using situation > calculus, Petri net, operational semantics. But since DAML is naturally > described by Description Logic and DAML-S is just ontology for service, > why can't we describe DAML-S by DL? > > Any idea? > > Thanks! > > Liu Shengping > Peking University > > > > ============================================================================== Sheila McIlraith, PhD Phone: 650-723-7932 Senior Research Scientist Fax: 650-725-5850 Knowledge Systems Lab Department of Computer Science Gates Sciences Building, 2A-248 http://www.ksl.stanford.edu/people/sam Stanford University E-mail: sam-at-ksl-dot-stanford-dot-edu Stanford, CA 94305-9020
Received on Tuesday, 2 September 2003 13:49:22 UTC