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

On Saturday, September 6, 2003, at 11:23  AM, Ian Horrocks wrote:
[snip]
>> Finally, notice that it's somewhat tricky, given the standard DL
>> reasoning services, to get even such obvious wins as matchmaking  
>> right.
>> This was brought home to use at the second SWSL F2F by Ian Horrocks  
>> (he
>> has a paper explaining the problem) on using subsumption for
>> matchmaking.
>>
>> (Of course, this isn't exclusively limited to DLs, in general. KR is
>> tricky :))
>
> It might be interesting to look at work on Abduction in DLs by Donini
> et al (WWW2003 [1] and IJCAI2003), and on "non-standard inferences",
> e.g., [2].
>
> Ian
>
> [1] http://www2003.org/cdrom/papers/refereed/p601/p601-dinoia.html
> [2]  
> http://lat.inf.tu-dresden.de/research/papers/2003/BrandtKuesters+LPAR- 
> 03.ps.gz
[snip]

Yes, I should have mentioned that, especially for matchmaking, various  
non-standard DL reasoning services seem very promising (actually, I'm  
sitting behind Ian at DL 2003 during a talk about adding "similarity"  
constructers in a DL, which is slick; there was another good  
matchmaking talk). But concept matching and unification, for example,  
seem to offer useful broadenings.

Cleverness still required, IMHO :)

Cheers,
Bijan Parsia.

Received on Monday, 8 September 2003 15:39:47 UTC