W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-archive@w3.org > April 2003

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

From: Jos De_Roo <jos.deroo@agfa.com>
Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2003 01:46:57 +0200
To: "Sandro Hawke <sandro" <sandro@w3.org>
Cc: Dejing Dou <dejing.dou@yale.edu>, Deborah McGuinness <dlm@belo.Stanford.EDU>, Drew McDermott <drew.mcdermott@yale.edu>, Jerome Euzenat <Jerome.Euzenat@inrialpes.fr>, Paulo Pinheiro da Silva <pp@ksl.stanford.edu>, sandro@roke.hawke.org, sw-team@w3.org, www-archive@w3.org
Message-ID: <OFA344D242.1F0908FB-ONC1256D17.007F6BB5-C1256D17.0082A485@agfa.be>


[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/
Received on Tuesday, 29 April 2003 19:49:06 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 7 November 2012 14:17:29 GMT