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: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@isr.umd.edu>
Date: Mon, 8 Sep 2003 15:42:10 -0400
Cc: "lsp" <lsp@is.pku.edu.cn>, <www-ws@w3.org>
To: Ian Horrocks <horrocks@cs.man.ac.uk>
Message-Id: <896E9AF4-E234-11D7-A704-0003939E0B44@isr.umd.edu>

On Saturday, September 6, 2003, at 11:23  AM, Ian Horrocks wrote:
>> 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

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 :)

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

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