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: Kashyap, Vipul <VKASHYAP1@PARTNERS.ORG>
Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2007 17:22:00 -0400
Message-ID: <DBA3C02EAD0DC14BBB667C345EE2D124010F0697@PHSXMB20.partners.org>
To: "Bijan Parsia" <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>, "OWL Working Group WG" <public-owl-wg@w3.org>

> > 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.
> IMO, no.

Wondering if you think this is a scope or a relevance issue.

> > 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.
> This is an active research topic. If you are coming to the face to
> face, I can show you some of that research.

Look forward to it. Unfortunately cannot make it to the F2F. Any chance you are
coming to the Tech Plenary?

> You might also look at Swoop which has more advanced presentation
> features. The implementation in P4 is preliminary (e.g., not
> including any presentational help). You might be surprised how far
> you can get without lemma generation.

Thanks for the pointer. Will download Swoop and check it out.

> Actually, this is pretty clearly false. What would be very useful is
> very useful. I'm willing to bet a lot that the above rewritings are
> not. 

Could you point to some paper/experiment that establishes the usefulness or lack
thereof of these rewritings?

> We already know (through actual user study, albeit indirectly)
> is that presentation is helpful. We have preliminary evidence that
> certain kinds of rewrite (e.g., swoop's "strike out" mode) can help a
> lot, and we are exploring others.

Yeah! More insights on this - papers etc. would be very useful.

> However, this is not appropriate for this group. Nor would it
> significantly speed access to users.

I am not sure I agree with the above. The ability to specify standardized
Explanations which to some extent depend on useful rewritings will play a big
role in the support model - i.e., the ability to debug and test OWL ontologies,
etc. The analogy is that every industry standard programming language today has
a well standardized error reporting and debugging mechanism.



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 21:22:19 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:42:00 UTC