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: Mon, 5 Nov 2007 08:07:07 -0500
Message-ID: <DBA3C02EAD0DC14BBB667C345EE2D124010F06EC@PHSXMB20.partners.org>
To: "Alan Ruttenberg" <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
Cc: "Jim Hendler" <hendler@cs.rpi.edu>, <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
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.

[VK] I mean the last + specific format for what the annotation properties

If this is viewed as too broad a scope, then as Jim suggested, we could just
have these things as annotation strings to start with


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?

[VK] I guess so, because there would be no choice.  And the reason I suggested
that commonly understood and used proof patterns be standardized is to limit he
scope of the work.



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 Monday, 5 November 2007 13:07:35 UTC

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