W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws@w3.org > September 2003

Re: why can't describe the semantic of DAML-S by Description Logic

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
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.44.0309021039220.14757-100000@onto2.Stanford.EDU>

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.

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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 23:05:12 UTC