Re: Explanations and Proof-Language Meeting (Agenda & Logistics)

[followup email cc'ed w3c archive]

Many thanks for the meeting
http://www.w3.org/2003/04/29/swad/

and the irc log
http://www.w3.org/2003/04/29-sw-team-irc

and this is followup of
[[
18:19:45 [ericP-scribe]
     jos: +testing 2nd opinions by idependent reasoners
18:19:55 [DanC]
     2nd opinion test cases... pointer? could you follow up in email with
     pointers?
]]

It's just a test case at
http://www.agfa.com/w3c/2002/10/medicad/op/
It illustrates the same conclusion of
2 independent reasoners (cwm and euler)
for the same theory.
It also illustrates a second opinion
based on 2 independent theories (one on
a more accurate mathematical basis and a
simpler one using the golden cut number
which could stand for 2 orthopedists)
and in all cases there is agreement about
the conclusion. The proofs should make
the different evidences transparent.


-- ,
Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/