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 13:17:07 -0500
Message-ID: <DBA3C02EAD0DC14BBB667C345EE2D124010F072A@PHSXMB20.partners.org>
To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Cc: <public-owl-wg@w3.org>

Thanks for the response, Peter! Even though I disagree with your opinions,
I do acknowledge that these are grey areas.

>> 4. Could this then lead to potential fragmentation of the OWL 1.1
>> around this issue?
>How?  It is not as if the language depends on how explanations are
>handed around.
>I think that this may be where our disconnect is happening.  I just
>don't see proofs and explanations as relevant to the language itself.
>Therefore proofs and explanations are not germane to the the WG.

[VK] Yes, I guess this is where the disconnect might be. So even here, I agree
that proofs and explanations are not relevant to the language, but just that
they are important tools to increase the acceptance and adoption.
Of course, this is in conjunction with the difference in perceived need and 
usefulness of proofs/explanations in ontology building.

>> >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
>> possible to scope down the effort in the following manner?
>> 1. The Proof Language is not part of the ontology (extra logical
>> 2. The specifications of proofs could be supported in a limited manner
>> annotation properties as strings?
>> 3. Maybe develop a limited format for proofs around a small extension to
>> 1.1?
>I don't see this as a way of bringing proofs and explanations into the WG.

[VK] This may not be the right way to do things, but a short term approach that
provides value. But I would understand why you may not like a "hack".



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 18:17:25 UTC

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