OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.

 


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

uddi-spec message

[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/valuefor some types of searches


Claus, I'm not sure how I would solve this one.
A keyedRefGroup would do, but on the other hand, everything named in OWL is
named thru rdf:ID and if it's not named it is not supposed to be referenced.
What I propose to use as name is the rdf:ID of the property or class that
may have a value, which goes into value.

In your example, there is no need to specify the hierarchy in keyedRef - all
we need is an rdf:ID of the class or property.

Anyway, I need to think about your example.

Cheers,
Max



----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Von Riegen, Claus" <claus.von.riegen@sap.com>
To: "'Max Voskob'" <max.voskob@paradise.net.nz>; "uddi-spec"
<uddi-spec@lists.oasis-open.org>
Sent: Thursday, 15 April 2004 22:09
Subject: RE: [uddi-spec] requirement to make name significant in
key/name/value for some types of searches


> Max,
>
> I'm trying to understand the focus/limitation of the proposed solution.
>
> What do you do if Product has a subclass UnitOfMeasure, which in turn has
a subclass Price with the same properties as before? How can you express a
combination of four or more parameters in a keyedReference?
>
> Claus
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Max Voskob [mailto:max.voskob@paradise.net.nz]
> Sent: Mittwoch, 14. April 2004 23:34
> To: uddi-spec
> Subject: Re: [uddi-spec] requirement to make name significant in
key/name/value for some types of searches
>
>
> 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_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.
> >
> >
>
>
> 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]