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 12:21:24 -0500
Message-ID: <DBA3C02EAD0DC14BBB667C345EE2D124010F0715@PHSXMB20.partners.org>
To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Cc: <public-owl-wg@w3.org>

>I really don't see a need for the OWL 1.1 spec to include a way of
>passing around even just proofs. 

[VK] I realize that I seem to have a different perspective on this from a few
members of this group. May I request your feedback on the following questions to
clearly understand where the dissonance lies?

1. Is there a need for proofs and explanations to the ontology builder as he is
developing and debugging large scale ontologies?

2. If the ontology builder is collaborating with a set of ontology builders
using different ontology building tools and reasoners, how would he or she share
these explanations across his/her team?

3. Is it likely some folks might their own proprietary format as a
standardization scheme is not supported by the OWL/Semantic Web community.

4. Could this then lead to potential fragmentation of the OWL 1.1 standard
around this issue?

5. Also, could this have a negative impact on acceptance and adoption of OWL 1.1
due to lack of what I believe is an important user need?

>Consider the problems in making a proof language part of OWL 1.1.  If
>the proof language has meaning as part of an ontology then the WG has to
>design syntax, devise semantics, translate it into RDF, etc.  Some of
>these are hard problems.  If the proof language doesn't have meaning as
>part of an ontology, then it shouldn't be in an ontology at all, and the
>WG shouldn't be working on it.

[VK] The above is a scope issue and I agree in large part with this. Is it
possible to scope down the effort in the following manner?
1. The Proof Language is not part of the ontology (extra logical construct?)
2. The specifications of proofs could be supported in a limited manner using
annotation properties as strings?
3. Maybe develop a limited format for proofs around a small extension to OWL

Thanks and Regards,


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 17:21:49 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:42:00 UTC