From: Graham Klyne (GK@ninebynine.org)
Date: 02/05/03
I've not been following this list closely, so please forgive me if I'm off-topic here, but I'm guessing that you're seeking use-cases for inference capabilities. I had a recent problem for which I found that CWM's inference capabilities were inadequate. The requirement is to take an access policy expressed in one form, and map it to an equivalent form that corresponds directly to the enforcement capabilities of some network hardware. An example of this might be to map from XACML access control descriptions of permitted network access to the access-list structure used in Cisco IOS routers. Also, noting Pat's later comment on this thread: >That requires some arithmetic integrated into the rule-firing, right? >Obviously handy, but probably requires a lot of extra machinery. Based on my initial experiments, I think some form of arithmetic (and other primitive data handling) capability in an inference engine would be useful. E.g. in my network configuration work, I wanted to be able to test if a given IP address falls within the range of addresses defined by an IP subnet address and subnet mask. #g -- At 11:37 AM 2/4/03 -0800, 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 ------------------- Graham Klyne <GK@NineByNine.org>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : 02/05/03 EST