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: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 4 Nov 2007 23:23:55 -0500
Message-Id: <FDCDC5D0-4DDB-4A1F-9088-22968EC12AC3@gmail.com>
Cc: "Jim Hendler" <hendler@cs.rpi.edu>, <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
To: "Kashyap, Vipul" <VKASHYAP1@PARTNERS.ORG>
Hi Vipul,

Do you mean to have a document that explains these? Or a standard way  
for reasoners to save an ontology and all entailments? If the latter,  
do you mean to define a set of annotation properties so that inferred  
entailments can be annotated in some way? Or do you mean this last +  
the specific format for what the annotation properties contain.

When you say that only some entailments and proofs need be  
standardized, do you mean you would be satisfied with nothing in the  
rest of the cases?

Still trying to get a handle on exactly what is being proposed.

-Alan

On Nov 4, 2007, at 8:40 AM, Kashyap, Vipul wrote:

> 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
>
>
>
> Proofs – probably as a sequence of entailments
> Entailments
> 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 Monday, 5 November 2007 04:24:11 GMT

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