Re: ISSUE-52 (Explanations): Specification of OWL equivalences and rewriting rules for explaining inferences from Bijan Parsia on 2007-11-05 (public-owl-wg@w3.org from November 2007)

From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2007 16:28:29 +0000
To: "Kashyap, Vipul" <VKASHYAP1@PARTNERS.ORG>
Cc: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>, <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <8D800499-C7A4-49F0-9E2F-9CE636016A9F@cs.man.ac.uk>

On 5 Nov 2007, at 16:02, Kashyap, Vipul wrote:

[snip]
> [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.

Speaking as an API contributer and tool builder (Swoop, OWLSight, OWL  
API, Protege4, Pellet, FaCT++) working specifically in this area, I  
do not, at this time, want or need these features from this working  
group. I don't think it's useful at this time to standardize these  
features. And I don't think this WG is the right place to standardize  
it. The DIG group is a better place, by and large.

Cheers,
Bijan.

Received on Monday, 5 November 2007 16:27:05 UTC