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: Sun, 4 Nov 2007 08:37:22 -0500
Message-ID: <DBA3C02EAD0DC14BBB667C345EE2D124010F06C3@PHSXMB20.partners.org>
To: "Alan Ruttenberg" <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>, <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
Consider two axioms in the KB, 

A subClass B

B subClass C

C subClass D

 

and the reasoner infers A subClass D

 

Inference = A subClass D

Proof = listOf(Entailment1, Entailment2)

 

Entailment1 = (A subClass B,, B subClass C) entails (A subClass C)

Entailment2 = (A subClass C, C subClass D) entails (A subClass D)

 

Explanation = verbalization(Proof) = listOf(Explanation1, Explanation2)

Explanation1 = verbalization(Entailment1) = "If A is a subClass of B and B is a
subClass of C then it follows that A is a subClass of C".

 

...

 

Would propose that the OWL 1.1 specification support constructs for Proof,
Entailment, Explanation...

as these can then be exchanged between tools and applications and persisted in a
standardized format.

 

How various tools and reaonsers generate and display these explanations is
probably not the focus of this WG.

 

Look forward to feedback and suggestions.

 

---Vipul

 

 

________________________________

From: public-owl-wg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-owl-wg-request@w3.org] On
Behalf Of Alan Ruttenberg
Sent: Saturday, November 03, 2007 8:44 PM
To: public-owl-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: ISSUE-52 (Explanations): Specification of OWL equivalences and
rewriting rules for explaining inferences

 

Sent a note to Vipul directly, but then realized it should go to list.

 

Basically, I'm not sure exactly what is meant by this. It would be helpful for
me to get some pseudo owl examples of what this would look like.

 

Regards,

Alan

 

 

On Nov 3, 2007, at 1:28 PM, Kashyap, Vipul wrote:





Clarification on this ISSUE-52"

 

Would like to propose that constructs for the following "extra-logical ?"
features be included in the OWL 1.1 Spec

 

1.	Proofs - probably as a sequence of entailments
2.	Entailments
3.	Explanations - probably as a human readable verbalizations of
entailments

 

The use case for the above is the need for an explanation feature for developing
and debugging large scale OWL ontologies.

A standardized specification of the above would enable better tool support for
these features enabling sharing of explanations

across tools and applications.. This will increase productivity of the ontology
developer.

 

Would like to discuss how this ISSUE is viewed as being within or beyond the
scope of the current WG.

 

---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 Sunday, 4 November 2007 13:37:38 GMT

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