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

RE: NeuronDB RDF and OWL

From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2007 11:08:49 -0500
Message-Id: <p06230908c2207013e1c4@[10.100.0.26]>
To: "Kashyap, Vipul" <VKASHYAP1@PARTNERS.ORG>
Cc: "public-semweb-lifesci hcls" <public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org> Subject: RE: NeuronDB RDF and OWL

>It depends on how you define soundness and completeness...

It would be immensely helpful, though, if these terms were to be used 
with their accepted meanings, as these are quite exact, relatively 
easy to define, widely understood, and have been standard in the 
relevant technical literature for about 50 years now. At the very 
least, if you are using them with different meanings, please 'flag' 
this by adding a qualifier, along the lines of 'sound and complete 
with respect to our database' or some such, to give the reader a hint 
that you are intending to convey a divergent meaning.

>In this context, the "algorithm" is our query processing/data integration
>approach.
>The difference is that it is contextualized to the Integrated DB/KB.
>
>i.e. Our "algorithm" is sound/complete if for all queries Q posed on the
>integrated KB it returns all and only correct answers...

Do you have some independent criterion for what is a 'correct 
answer'? If not, the claim of completeness is vacuous. If you do, 
what is it? Can you share it with us? To establish completeness is 
often quite tricky, and it would be good to see exactly what is being 
claimed.

Pat Hayes

PS. BTW, soundness does not of course guarantee correctness of 
answers. No logical property can guarantee that.

>
>Whether we "lied" to the KB is immaterial. As long as a fact is 
>asserted as true
>in our KB, it is deemed as true even if we lied...
>
>Makes sense?
>
>---Vipul
>
>>  -----Original Message-----
>>  From: Alan Ruttenberg [mailto:alanruttenberg@gmail.com]
>>  Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2007 11:49 AM
>>  To: Kashyap, Vipul
>>  Cc: public-semweb-lifesci hcls
>>  Subject: Re: NeuronDB RDF and OWL
>>
>>  Soundness isn't the same, because we can lie (tell wrong facts) to
>>  the reasoner, which will (soundly) repeat back the lies.
>>  That's the sort of thing that happens when we use is_a instead of
>>  part_of in our ontologies.
>>
>>  -Alan
>>
>>  On Mar 15, 2007, at 11:38 AM, Kashyap, Vipul wrote:
>>
>>  >
>>  >> Just to clarify, because "sound and complete" is often used in a
>>  >> different sense: I don't mean sound and complete in the sense it is
>>  >> used in describing the properties of reasoning algorithms. I meant
>>  >> this
>>  >> statement with respect to the quality of answers to questions asked
>>  >> within our domain of interest: Biology/Life Sciences.  The former
>>  >> only
>>  >> depends on the algorithm. The latter depends on what's in our KB, and
>>  >> how we ask the questions.
>>  >
>>  > [VK] I guess soundness is still the same, don't want "wrong"
>>  > answers to be
>>  > returned in any case. But completeness would be based on the what's
>>  > there in the
>>  > virtual integrated DB/KB.
>>  >
>>  > Cheers,
>>  >
>>  > ---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.
>>  >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>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.


-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------------
IHMC		(850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973   home
40 South Alcaniz St.	(850)202 4416   office
Pensacola			(850)202 4440   fax
FL 32502			(850)291 0667    cell
phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us       http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes
Received on Friday, 16 March 2007 16:09:13 UTC

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