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: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Date: Mon, 05 Nov 2007 03:31:13 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <20071105.033113.264585514.pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
To: VKASHYAP1@PARTNERS.ORG
Cc: bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk, public-owl-wg@w3.org

From: "Kashyap, Vipul" <VKASHYAP1@PARTNERS.ORG>
Subject: RE: ISSUE-52 (Explanations): Specification of OWL equivalences and rewriting rules for explaining inferences
Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2007 17:22:00 -0400

> > From: Vipul Kashyap
> > > 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.

>  From: Bijan Parsia
> >
> > IMO, no.
> 
> Wondering if you think this is a scope or a relevance issue.

I agree with Bijan that the WG should not look at explanations for
several reasons, including both scope and relevance:

1/ You haven't demonstrated a need for explanations.  (This is not to
   say that there is not a need, but that requests for extra
   functionality should only be considered if there is a demonstrated
   need.) 

2/ This is a large addition to the work of the WG, and thus is probably
   out of scope.

3/ Although there has been work on explanation generation, I do not
   believe that there is any consensus on how to present them to users.

4/ Presenting extra information to users is largely a task of UI tools,
   so its inclusion in a language spec is problematic.

[...]

Peter F. Patel-Schneider
Received on Monday, 5 November 2007 08:42:54 GMT

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