[seek-kr-sms] growl-paper

[Serguei Krivov]

Let me give you an example to further illustrate my question. 
 
Think about I'm going to combine two OS commands "COPY","FORMAT" to make
a more powerful command "OSTOOL". If the first parameter of OSTOOL is
"COPY" then it does COPY and similar thing happens to "FORMAT". 
 
So it is not relation of equivalence, it is the fact that under certain
combination of parameters OSTOOLS overlaps with COPY, under certain
other combination it overlaps with FORMAT. Here we have that OSTOOL is a
procedure like the following:
 
OSTOOL(arg2) {
   if(arg1=="copy")
            return  COPY(arg2);
   else   if(arg1=="format")
             return  FORMAT(arg2);
 
}
 
 
 I think it would be not possible to express this precicely in OWL.
(otherwise we would be able to use owl as a programming language) What
is possible is to express certain relation between input parameters of
OSTOOL, COPY and FORMAT. Say the following diagram says that input type
for OSTOOLS represented by class O2-Input is exactly equivalent to class
O1-Input + one extra argument "arg1", and  O1-Input is an input type for
COPY and FORMAT:

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
It seems that, in your two solutions, you are separating operation and
Input/output (either one I/O is a sub-property of another or one
operation is a sub-property of another, but not combining I/O and
operation to make an equivalent relation). 
 
I believe that diagram above represents the fact that input for OSTOOLS
is a combination of input for COPY (and FORMAT) with one extra
parameter. Consider usage of operation "Intersection" of things that
have some attributes ("exist" property restrictions in OWL) when you
have such combination of parameters.  When there are different options
for intput/output types, the  Union of types would express such non
deterministic type.
 
serguei
 
Let's see whether we have other choices. 
 
Jianting
 
----- Original Message ----- 
From: Serguei <mailto:Serguei.Krivov at uvm.edu>  Krivov 
To: 'Jianting Zhang' <mailto:jzhang at lternet.edu>  
Sent: Monday, January 03, 2005 8:13 AM
Subject: RE: [seek-kr-sms] growl-paper
 
Hi Jianting,
 
 
 
Suppose there two systems and each of them has a (hierarchical)
classification of operations which sure can be expressed as ontology. If
operation O1 in system S1 is functionally equivalent to operation O2 in
system S2 with an additional input parameter. How would you express the
equivalence in OWL/RDF?
I may not really  understand this question correctly, so I will answer
on it by making a few  counter questions:
 
If we are expressing the  operations as ontology classes, then why cant
we  introduce a transitive  relation "equivalent-operation" and express
the equivalence as below???? (this require html mode on email client)

In this picture O2-Input class is a subclass of O1-Input which may take
care about an extra parameter.
 
 
On the other hand if we are using representation of processes as
properties (which may be compatible with the representation of them as
classes-see, pict bellow:)

 
then perhaps we  could simply  say that property O1 is a subproperty of
O2, can't we?????
 
Again I do not really understand your question, specifically the
following points:
1. If process/operation has an extra input parameter, how possibly we
could have equivalence here?  If we use word "equivalent" then the
underlying equivalence relation should be reflexive, symmetric and
transitive, but it does not seem to me that here it is  symmetric, since
there is extra input parameter. May be a "specification-of-process"  is
more appropriate then "equivalent-process"?
 
2. What are systems S1 and S2 - different ontologies???
 
Happy New Year!
 
serguei
 
 
Thanks
 
Jianting Zhang
 
SEEK at UNM
 
----- Original Message ----- 
From: Serguei Krivov <mailto:Serguei.Krivov at uvm.edu>  
To: seek-kr-sms at ecoinformatics.org 
Sent: Monday, November 15, 2004 8:23 AM
Subject: [seek-kr-sms] growl-paper
 
Dear All,
Here  is a final draft of growl paper:
http://ecoinformatics.uvm.edu/dmaps/growl/growl_paper-v3.doc
 
We would deeply appreciate any feedback.
 
serguei
 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mercury.nceas.ucsb.edu/ecoinformatics/pipermail/seek-kr-sms/attachments/20050103/83c82c7c/attachment.htm
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 79332 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://mercury.nceas.ucsb.edu/ecoinformatics/pipermail/seek-kr-sms/attachments/20050103/83c82c7c/attachment.jpg