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 08:40:46 -0500
Message-ID: <DBA3C02EAD0DC14BBB667C345EE2D124010F06C4@PHSXMB20.partners.org>
To: "Jim Hendler" <hendler@cs.rpi.edu>
Cc: <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
Agree with your opinion that there might be a scope issue here and may be we are
early in the game..

This is very important for an ontology developer though.

 

Maybe we can start off by having some placeholders where all these things are
"strings" for now

and then further specify their structure as things move forward?

 

Have just sent out an e-mail further clarifiying my thoughts on the issue and
may be some commonly

known entailments and proofs can be standardized?

 

Regards,

 

---Vipul

 

________________________________

From: Jim Hendler [mailto:hendler@cs.rpi.edu] 
Sent: Sunday, November 04, 2007 8:37 AM
To: Kashyap, Vipul
Cc: public-owl-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: ISSUE-52 (Explanations): Specification of OWL equivalences and
rewriting rules for explaining inferences

 

Vipul-

 In the first OWL group there were a number of features that we couldn't get
consensus on a conclusion to (Part-whole being a good example) where we took the
approach that we should provide the tools to define these things, rather than
try to specify them.  Given the current state of explanation research, my
instinct is that we could probably do that in this case by making the annotation
mechanism a little stronger, and letting people build their own for the things
you suggest for now - after those have been out and deployed, we might get more
consensus (note that I use a lot of non-tableaux based procedural reasoners in
my new work, so how you would explain the proofs could be arbitrarily hard)

 -JH

 

 

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.





 

"If we knew what we were doing, it wouldn't be called research, would it?." -
Albert Einstein

 

Prof James Hendler
http://www.cs.rpi.edu/~hendler

Tetherless World Constellation Chair

Computer Science Dept

Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy NY 12180

 

 





 
Received on Sunday, 4 November 2007 13:41:01 GMT

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