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 11:34:42 -0500
Message-ID: <DBA3C02EAD0DC14BBB667C345EE2D124010F0708@PHSXMB20.partners.org>
To: "Bijan Parsia" <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
Cc: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>, <public-owl-wg@w3.org>


>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.

[VK] I agree with you on the scope aspect. The key issue I am proposing is
whether we can standardize in a limited way, as Jim suggested, using annotation
properties?

As an ontology builder, it would be great if tools can support sharing of proofs
and explanations across a team of ontologists in a collaborative ontology
building context.

Typically user needs drive tool features and it is very common for users to ask
for features that tool builders do not feel the need for :)

---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 16:34:56 GMT

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