W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org > April 2007

Re: Demo SPARQL notes

From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2007 14:19:23 +0100
Message-Id: <D11E3FB5-3DC8-47DB-A11B-C945E6D92C6A@cs.man.ac.uk>
Cc: samwald@gmx.at, public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org
To: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>

On Apr 18, 2007, at 3:57 AM, Alan Ruttenberg wrote:

> Well, this is a conundrum. As you know, if anything is inconsistent  
> in DL, then everything logically follows.

In the base consequence relation, yes. But we can build things on top  
of that.

> What do you expect the behavior of the reasoner and the query  
> engine to be in such a case? Some sort of
> bounds around inconsistencies? If so, how to set the bounds.

One resilient behavior is that if under every possible minimal repair  
of the ontology something is entailed, return that.

Another is to report every possible non-inconsistency based way of  
entailing something, with the entailments.

There are others.

Obviously, the desirable behavior is heavily dependent on the  

> A reasonable strategy might be to have 2 layers of representation.  
> Assert the biology as best you can. Perhaps even overstate (we will  
> do some of that for the demo). Have a reasoner identify the  
> contradictions and then, based on a curator's best judgement,  
> remove those findings that seem contradictory. Represent those  
> separately, as statements, in a database of controversial   
> findings. As a scientist, understand that you will need to query  
> both the consistent facts and the inconsistent facts if you want to  
> know the whole story.

Ah, yes, this is similar to the above points. But you can automate it  
to extract and present the findings which *are* contradictory.

> This seems a better option than what I usually see - silently  
> leaving in a portion of actual encoding errors with a smidgen of  
> controversy, and not marking any of it.

Sometimes controversy is contradictory, sometimes not. Sometimes the  
effort to make a controversy show up as a contradiction is too much.  
Given enough background knowledge it might not be.

I do think intelligent contradiction management, whether the  
contradictions are mere bugs or are useful information stored in the  
system is very important. Recent work (by me and aditya and loads of  
others) has brought us to a place where we can do very well in this  

So, yay!

Received on Wednesday, 18 April 2007 13:19:48 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:52:30 UTC