[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [uddi-spec] requirement to make name significant in key/name/value for some types of searches
Massimo,
I agree. We can do it this way, but I think it involves more processing on
the server and client than making name significant.
Either way is fine with me.
Cheers,
Max
----- Original Message -----
From: "Massimo Paolucci" <paolucci@cs.cmu.edu>
To: "uddi-spec" <uddi-spec@lists.oasis-open.org>
Sent: Thursday, April 15, 2004 11:00 AM
Subject: Re: [uddi-spec] requirement to make name significant in
key/name/value for some types of searches
> I agree with Max that would be good to find a way to use properties in
> UDDI, but I also share the concern about name in a way that is
> inconsistent with the rest of UDDI. It just does not feel like a good
> solution. The use of keyedReferenceGroup is a bit longer to express, but
> it is fully consistent with the UDDI specs. What follows is my proposal
> to express the Max's examples.
>
> Any property in OWL has three componens: subject, object and predicate.
>
> For instance in Max's example the subject is the domain of the property
> (the thing the property applies to) the predicate is the property itself
> and the subject is the value of the keyedReference.
>
> I propose to define three additional tModels for subject, object and
> predicate. Than we can define the KeyedReferenceGroup as follows
>
> <keyedReferenceGroup tModelKey=tModel:Key >
> <keyedReference tModelKey=uddi:owl:subejct
> keyName=dealerX
> keyValue=someURL#DealerX />
>
> <keyedReference
> tModelKey=uddi:owl:predicate"
> keyName=Price
> keyValue=someURL#Price />
>
> <keyedReference
> tModelKey=uddi:owl:object"
> keyName=the value
> keyValue=100 />
> </keyedReferenceGroup>
>
>
> The verfication of the model should make sure that the instance or
> concept someURL#DealerX is in the ontology tModel:Key and that the
> predicate someURL#Price in the same ontology relates dealers to numbers.
>
> Equivalently, we can specify relations with other OWL concepts and
> instances. For instance, we may want to express that the dealer has some
> accreditation, for instance that it won the price for best dealer in
> town. Here priceURL:bestDealerInTown is defined is some ontology as an
> instance of price or as a type of price. Bottom like it is an OWL thing,
> not an XML schema value like 100 would be.
>
> <keyedReferenceGroup tModelKey=tModel:Key >
> <keyedReference tModelKey=uddi:owl:subejct
> keyName=dealerX
> keyValue=someURL#DealerX />
>
> <keyedReference
> tModelKey=uddi:owl:predicate"
> keyName=Price
> keyValue=someURL#Winner />
>
> <keyedReference
> tModelKey=uddi:owl:object"
> keyName=the price"
> keyValue=priceURL:bestDealerInTown />
> </keyedReferenceGroup>
>
> Anyway, we can encode the same information that can be encoded in Max's
> examples, but in a way that is more consistent with UDDI since it does
> not create any new case and intuitive with OWL (OWL people would
> understand this immediately). The only drawback is that it is a bit
> longer, but working with XML stuff to be succint is a lost battle.
>
> --- Massimo
>
>
>
>
>
> Max Voskob wrote:
>
> >Claus,
> >
> >keyedReferenceGroup approach is not as elegant as making the name
> >significant. This is also the way Massimo proposed to deal with
properties,
> >but he admitted it is quite awkward.
> >
> >I'm not sure if the requirement to make name significant from RQ 20 is in
> >coz during the dicussion on taxonomies/ontologies we agreed it is not.
> >
> >Is there any additonal cost involved with using name wherever it is
> >specified in the search and ignoring if it's not?
> >If we do it for keywords, then I can't see why we can't do it for OWL.
> >
> >I'd suggest a compromise - we do it for keywords and OWL only :-)
> >
> >I think we are losing a lot of expressivity if we limit what we can state
> >about individuals to assigning them to classes only.
> >
> >Cheers,
> >Max
> >
> >
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: "Von Riegen, Claus" <claus.von.riegen@sap.com>
> >To: "uddi-spec" <uddi-spec@lists.oasis-open.org>
> >Sent: Thursday, April 15, 2004 7:08 AM
> >Subject: RE: [uddi-spec] requirement to make name significant in
> >key/name/value for some types of searches
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >>Hi Max,
> >>
> >>I believe that the use case you mention can be supported by using a
> >>
> >>
> >keyedReferenceGroup that groups the category ("Product"), the price type
> >(e.g. "dealer") and the price (e.g. "100") together.
> >
> >
> >>Also, this would be much more flexible, since keyedReferenceGroups allow
> >>
> >>
> >any number of keyedReferences to be grouped.
> >
> >
> >>Thoughts?
> >>
> >>Claus
> >>
> >>-----Original Message-----
> >>From: Max Voskob [mailto:max.voskob@paradise.net.nz]
> >>Sent: Mittwoch, 14. April 2004 13:29
> >>To: uddi-spec
> >>Subject: [uddi-spec] requirement to make name significant in
> >>
> >>
> >key/name/value for some types of searches
> >
> >
> >>Hi all,
> >>
> >>First of all, thanx for coming to NZ to those who came and for those who
> >>didn't - we were missing you. :-)
> >>I hope you enjoyed your stay here.
> >>
> >>I would like to return to the proposal I made at the very end of the
last
> >>FTF: make name significant for some searchers on keyedReference. This is
> >>required for some semantic and non-semantic searches when an OWL
> >>
> >>
> >onlotology
> >
> >
> >>is used.
> >>
> >>Ontology example:
> >>
> >> <owl:Class rdf:ID="Product"/>
> >>
> >> <owl:Class rdf:ID="Price">
> >> <rdfs:subClassOf rdf:resource="#Product"/>
> >> </owl:Class>
> >>
> >> <owl:Class rdf:ID="DeliveryTerm">
> >> <rdfs:subClassOf rdf:resource="#Product"/>
> >> <owl:oneOf rdf:parseType="Collection">
> >> <owl:Thing rdf:about="#Overnight"/>
> >> <owl:Thing rdf:about="#AirMail"/>
> >> <owl:Thing rdf:about="#UPSInternational"/>
> >> </owl:oneOf>
> >> </owl:Class>
> >>
> >> <owl:DatatypeProperty rdf:about="#dealer">
> >> <rdfs:domain rdf:resource="#Price"/>
> >> <rdf:range rdf:resource="&xsd;decimal"/>
> >> </owl:DatatypeProperty>
> >>
> >> <owl:DatatypeProperty rdf:about="#distributor">
> >> <rdfs:domain rdf:resource="#Price"/>
> >> <rdf:range rdf:resource="&xsd;decimal"/>
> >> </owl:DatatypeProperty>
> >>
> >> <owl:DatatypeProperty rdf:about="#retial">
> >> <rdfs:domain rdf:resource="#Price"/>
> >> <rdf:range rdf:resource="&xsd;decimal"/>
> >> </owl:DatatypeProperty>
> >>
> >>Ontology graph:
> >>
> >>Product
> >> - Price
> >> - dealer
> >> - distributor
> >> - retail
> >> - DeliveryTerm
> >>
> >>where dealer, distributor and retail are properties of Price with XML
> >>
> >>
> >Schema
> >
> >
> >>decimal datatype and DeliveryTerm can take values from the enumeration
> >>[Overnight, AirMail, UPSInternational] only.
> >>
> >>
> >>Ontology use example as RDF/XML:
> >>
> >> <Product>
> >> <Price>
> >> <dealer rdf:datatype="&xsd;decimal">100</dealer>
> >> <distributor rdf:datatype="&xsd;decimal">50</distributor>
> >> <retail rdf:datatype="&xsd;decimal">150</retail>
> >> </Price>
> >> </Product>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>Ontology use example as keyedReference in a category bag:
> >>
> >>
> >>Ontology:tModel:Key #Product //the name is omited - the entity is
> >>categorised as #Product
> >>Ontology:tModel:Key #dealer 100 //dealer price is 100
> >>Ontology:tModel:Key #distributor 50 //distributor price is 50
> >>Ontology:tModel:Key #retail 150 //retail price is 150
> >>
> >>
> >>_Find use case:
> >>
> >>I need to find all products with dealer price 100.
> >>I use an ontology registered as a tModel with key Ontology:tModel:Key.
> >>Parsing the ontology I understand that what I'm looking for must be
> >>categorised as #Product with a property #dealer = 100. This makes the
name
> >>significant for searches. At the same time, there is no need for UDDI to
> >>understand the semantics of the search as the reasoning can be done
> >>
> >>
> >outside
> >
> >
> >>of UDDI.
> >>
> >>
> >>I discussed this scenario and solution with Massimo and he agreed that
it
> >>
> >>
> >is
> >
> >
> >>a common scenario, but suggested a workaround that he will post to the
> >>
> >>
> >list
> >
> >
> >>shortly.
> >>I think it is very important for us to include this in the spec if we
use
> >>OWL for ontologies.
> >>
> >>If names a not significant, then all you can say about an individual is
> >>
> >>
> >that
> >
> >
> >>it belongs to some class.
> >>E.g. one can easily state that an entity is a #Product, but there is no
no
> >>simple way to state what the #DeliveryTerm is.
> >>
> >>Another fundamental reason to make name significant is the very nature
of
> >>RDF - it is a triple.
> >>Subject - the entity
> >>Predicate - name
> >>Object - value
> >>and the key refers to a tModel which refers to the ontology
> >>There can be other RDF bits beyond the triple, e.g. rdf:datatype
> >>
> >>
> >attribute,
> >
> >
> >>but we can do without it in the meantime.
> >>
> >>Well, I can be wrong with all this, so please, feel free to put me
right.
> >>
> >>Regards,
> >>Max
> >>
> >>
> >>To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from the roster of
> >>
> >>
> >the OASIS TC), go to
>
>http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/uddi-spec/members/leave_workgr
oup.php.
> >
> >
> >>To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from the roster of
> >>
> >>
> >the OASIS TC), go to
>
>http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/uddi-spec/members/leave_workgr
oup.php.
> >
> >
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from the roster of
the OASIS TC), go to
http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/uddi-spec/members/leave_workgroup.php.
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from the roster of
the OASIS TC), go to
http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/uddi-spec/members/leave_workgroup.php.
>
>
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]