W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-owl-wg@w3.org > November 2007

Re: ISSUE-52 (Explanations): Specification of OWL equivalences and rewriting rules for explaining inferences

From: Rinke Hoekstra <hoekstra@uva.nl>
Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2007 20:40:47 +0100
Message-Id: <9E223FD4-E90B-4145-8AEE-8920FD1BEF14@uva.nl>
To: OWL Working Group WG <public-owl-wg@w3.org>

Dear Vipul, others,

Your message below raises both a question and a worry on my part.  
First of all, let me stress that I applaud any effort to make the OWL- 
somename spec. more accessible to users.

My worry is that some ISSUEs are in my view definitely more ISSUE-ish  
than others. For instance, your ISSUE-52 can be seen as a suggestion,  
whereas ISSUE-51 (raised by Jim) is a real problem we need to resolve.  
Perhaps, and I don't know if you and others agree, it would be best to  
not be too eager in posting issues that do not have a high problem- 
rating as dealing with issues is a rather bureaucratic process (e.g.  
we all need to agree that the issue is resolved). Especially if the  
issue/suggestion could just as well be discussed on the mailinglist  
*before* being posted as a real ISSUE.

Secondly, my question is whether and where we should draw the line  
between:
a) making the OWL-somename *specification* more accessible to users, and
b) providing *educational* material explaining the consequences of the  
technicalities in the spec.

As I understand it, the discussion about user-facing documents is more  
about a) than about b), and I think your issue might just cross the  
border between a) and b) and is perhaps more at home with a group like  
SWEO?

Just my 2,901 cents (at the current exchange rate)

Best,

	Rinke



On 2 nov 2007, at 19:02, OWL Working Group Issue Tracker wrote:

>
>
> ISSUE-52 (Explanations): Specification of OWL equivalences and  
> rewriting rules for explaining inferences
>
> http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/tracker/issues/
>
> Raised by: Vipul Kashyap
> On product:
>
> I was wondering if the OWL 1.1 effort should also look at ways and  
> means of standardizing inference explanations, especially to make  
> them user understandable.
>
> The current version of P4 has functionality that identifies the  
> relevant axioms involved in making an inference, but stops short of  
> explaining how the entailments/consequences of these axioms can be  
> chained together to create an explanation.
>
> Towards this end, I was wondering whether well know OWL/DL  
> equivalences and rewritings should be part of the OWL 1.1 Spec. Some  
> examples that come to mind are:
>
> A subClass B ==> (p some A) subClass (p some B)
> (p some (A and B)) subclass (p some A) and (p some B)
>
> I am sure there are many others ...
> A standardized approach for explanations of inferences could be a  
> very useful feature from the user point of view.
>
>

----------------------------------------------
Drs. Rinke Hoekstra

Email: hoekstra@uva.nl   Skype:  rinkehoekstra
Phone: +31-20-5253499    Fax:   +31-20-5253495
Web:   http://www.leibnizcenter.nl/users/rinke

Leibniz Center for Law,         Faculty of Law
University of Amsterdam,           PO Box 1030
1000 BA  Amsterdam,            The Netherlands
----------------------------------------------
Received on Friday, 2 November 2007 19:40:55 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:13:27 GMT