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

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

From: Kashyap, Vipul <VKASHYAP1@PARTNERS.ORG>
Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2007 16:02:33 -0400
Message-ID: <DBA3C02EAD0DC14BBB667C345EE2D124010F0689@PHSXMB20.partners.org>
To: <public-owl-wg@w3.org>


Hi,

Wanted to share my response to Rinke with the rest of this group.

---Vipul

-----Original Message-----
From: Kashyap, Vipul 
Sent: Friday, November 02, 2007 4:01 PM
To: 'Rinke Hoekstra'
Subject: RE: ISSUE-52 (Explanations): Specification of OWL equivalences and
rewriting rules for explaining inferences

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,  

VK> ISSUE-52 has merely been proposed as a suggestion primarily because I
want to get a sense of scope as viewed by this WG. But it ALSO is a problem
just in case you got fooled by the language.

VK> For instance, I am creating some anatomy ontologies based on Snomed and FMA
using P4 and found that some of the inferences by Fact++ appeared to be in
error. So I clicked on the explanation button and all I got
was a list of axioms. For a user not aware of the inner workings of the Tableaux
reasoner, this is definitely a huge problem, because that precludes him/her from
effective debugging.

VK> So explanation is a high problem rating issue we need to resolve and this is
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

VK> I seem to have a different perspective than others in this group, but (a) is
in IMHO more if not equal in importance to the technical aspects.

b) providing *educational* material explaining the consequences of the  
technicalities in the spec.

VK> This is more than educationsl, this is related to the support model for
using these languages in an operational setting. The analogy which comes to mind
is the framework for debugging in eclipse. Would suggest that the success and
failure of a standard critically depends on the usability and support model.

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?

VK> I disagree. The user facing documents is at least as if not more important
than the actual spec. and quite a few people in this group have agreed with me
on that as well....

---Vipul


The information transmitted in this electronic communication is intended only for the person or entity to whom it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of or taking of any action in reliance upon this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this information in error, please contact the Compliance HelpLine at 800-856-1983 and properly dispose of this information.
Received on Friday, 2 November 2007 20:02:47 GMT

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