From: Deborah McGuinness (dlm@ksl.stanford.edu)
Date: 02/04/03
sorry - i could not get anything out sooner on use cases. More will follow. My use cases center around the a few scenarios. I include one here. Topic - configuration. PROSE/QUESTAR used a description logic-based system to take a set of constraints and generate a complete and correct parts list along with a price. PROSE/QUESTAR configured telecommunications equipment. Because the domain was very complicated and non-intuitive, we also did a stereo configurator for pedagogical reasons. We also did a wines and food configurator but some people liked the stereo configurator better for demonstrating naturally occuring business problems. The rules were used in a number of ways. - once a set of constraints was recognized to be configuring a system of type x (as a result of recognition in the dl reasoner) then a set of rules fired adding more constraints onto the parts list. This can be done without a separate rule form in OWL today but in CLASSIC it was done by rules. - rules were used in order to compute values. Once the system knew that it had x as a value for property y, then it might be able to calculate a new value for a property. -rules were also used as filters before proceeding. Once something was recognized to be an instance of a class, then if it also passed another filter (possibly an unnamed concept description), then an action was taken. [PROSE] Deborah L. McGuinness and Jon Wright. ``An Industrial Strength Description Logic-based Configurator Platform''. IEEE Intelligent Systems, Vol. 13, No. 4, July/August 1998, pp. 69-77. [Stereo-Configurator] http://www.bell-labs.com/project/classic/home-entertain.html I will add more to this in another email and also add other cases in data archaeology for a use case. deborah Mike Dean wrote: > I think we want to include something like this, although it > would probably be better as part of a larger Web Services or > other application use case. > > OWL places some limitations on expressivity to retain > tractability. A frequently cited limitation is "property > chaining", the ability to express constraints among > multiple properties. We can augment an OWL ontology with > additional inference rules. > > Several examples: > > 2 siblings have the same father, i.e. > > sibling(S1, S2) > father(S1, F) > => > father(S2, F) > > a Debtor is a Person whose (cumulative) liabilities > exceed his (cumulative) assets > > Mike -- Deborah L. McGuinness Knowledge Systems Laboratory Gates Computer Science Building, 2A Room 241 Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305-9020 email: dlm@ksl.stanford.edu URL: http://ksl.stanford.edu/people/dlm/index.html (voice) 650 723 9770 (stanford fax) 650 725 5850 (computer fax) 801 705 0941
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : 02/04/03 EST