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 11:02:38 -0500
Message-ID: <DBA3C02EAD0DC14BBB667C345EE2D124010F0702@PHSXMB20.partners.org>
To: "Bijan Parsia" <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>, "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Cc: <public-owl-wg@w3.org>


>> 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.
>
>I'll go stronger: there is no evidence on what sorts of normalization
>and lemma generation are more helpful than confusing. We have field
>evidence about various presentation features in swoop, but there is
>still room for experimentation. I am, with Matthew Horridge,
>currently working on this, but I would not expect this research to be
>advanced enough for *any* kind of standardization for at least a
>year. (Though we should have reasonably preliminary results in the
>next few months.)

[VK] Clarification: What I propose to standardize is not (a) how to represent
these proofs; or (b) normalization of lemma generation.

All I am proposing is a standardized format to "report" these things.
As more results emerge from the experiementation, they can easily be
represented and reported in a standardized format. This is along this lines
of the PML work by Deborah customized for OWL 1.1

BTW, would be very interested in initial results of these field trials where
available.

>> 4/ Presenting extra information to users is largely a task of UI
>> tools,
>>    so its inclusion in a language spec is problematic.
>
>Furthermore, there is little need for standardization to promote
>dissemination. It's not like any of the tool vendors don't want this
>to work. It's mostly resource boundedness (e.g., Swoop like
>presentation is coming to Protege4 and OWLSight when we get time to
>do it). Having to work on standardization would only drain resources
>from that work.

[VK] See my clarification in the e-mail before. A standardized way of reporting
proofs will be a very useful feature for tool and application interoperability
in the context of ontology building.

---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.
Received on Monday, 5 November 2007 16:03:03 GMT

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