[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]