Re: ISSUE-52 (Explanations): Specification of OWL equivalences and rewriting rules for explaining inferences

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.