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: Deborah L. McGuinness <dlm@ksl.stanford.edu>
Date: Mon, 05 Nov 2007 06:05:06 -0800
Message-ID: <472F2312.4070903@ksl.stanford.edu>
To: "Kashyap, Vipul" <VKASHYAP1@PARTNERS.ORG>
CC: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>, Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.rpi.edu>, public-owl-wg@w3.org

Kashyap, Vipul wrote:
>
> 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 contain./*
>
> */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./*
>
> */ /*
>
> */---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.
>   
i actually love this train of thought given that i have been doing 
explanation research for quite a while now.
I also have a proposal for such an encoding format [1,2].  This (PML - 
standing for Proof Markup Language) has been used in a number of 
projects to encode how reasoners (or more generally systems that are 
used to answer questions) get their answers.  It has been used to 
justify results from FOL reasoners, BDI task processors, numerous text 
analytic engines including entity extractors, co-reference resolution, 
etc.), machine learners (using a variety of techniques), etc.
BUT while this line of work is close to my heart and is a passion, I do 
actually think the general explanation community is NOT ready for a full 
working group to go over details and agree on a recommended standard.   
Also, while i do want to see this happen at some point, I think it is a 
fair amount of work and was not in the original scope of our current 
charter.

I would be happy to have a discussion about this in person at the F2F 
with any interested parties since I would LOVE input.

Deborah

[1] Pinheiro da Silva, McGuinness and Fikes. *A Proof Markup Language 
for Semantic Web Services*. /Information Systems/. Volume 31, Issues 
4-5, June-July 2006, Pages 381-395.  
http://www.ksl.stanford.edu/KSL_Abstracts/KSL-04-01.html
[2]  McGuinness, Ding, Pinheiro da Silva, Chang.   PML 2: A Modular 
Explanation Interlingua. Proceedings of the 2007 Workshop on 
Explanation-aware Computing (ExaCt-2007), Vancouver, Canada, July 22-23, 
2007. http://www.ksl.stanford.edu/KSL_Abstracts/KSL-07-07.html
Received on Monday, 5 November 2007 14:05:18 GMT

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