- From: Thomas Douillard <thomas.douillard@gmail.com>
- Date: Sat, 16 Jul 2022 13:58:45 +0200
- To: Chris Yocum <cyocum@gmail.com>
- Cc: semantic-web <semantic-web@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAHYhspZuOTpOwYfWbC8Df4THxV7D6bK+b9GMe2nsy6DtuLZLPA@mail.gmail.com>
That definitely make sense. Some reasoner provides explanations for their inferences, see for example this link : https://stackoverflow.com/questions/29556788/how-to-perform-inference-explanation-in-jena-with-a-pellet-reasoner Le sam. 16 juil. 2022 à 12:01, Chris Yocum <cyocum@gmail.com> a écrit : > Dear Semantic Web Community, > > I have written on this list before about my project but I wanted to > bring up a particular problem that I have with reasoners that will > require some background explanation before I can describe the problem. > > My project encodes some of the most important genealogies of medieval > Ireland in RDF (git repo: https://github.com/cyocum/irish-gen, blog: > https://cyocum.github.io/). Because I am often the only person > working on this, I use reasoners to extrapolate the often implicit > information in the data. This saves me much time and I only need to > translate exactly what is in the source material. I have discussed > some of the problems that I have encountered a few years ago > (https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/semantic-web/2018Dec/0088.html). > I do not want to bring that back up but if someone is interested in > any of those problems, please feel free to email me and I would > happily discuss some of them with you. > > When I discuss some of the benefits of using a reasoner to some of my > Humanities based colleagues, one of the many things that come up is: > how do I check that the reasoner has reasoned through this correctly? > Essentially, this is about accountability. "Computer says so" does not > carry much weight. If I cannot justify why a reasoner has made a > certain choice when inferring predicates, some of the force of the > system is lost. Additionally, if I run a SPARQL query and the result > that is returned is not what I had expected, having a "meta-query" of > the reasoner can help me find bugs in my own data that I can track > down and fix. I do understand that I can always go back to the > original source material and try to track down the error that way but > it would something like this would make it much easier in situations > where the material is still in manuscript form and difficult to > decipher. Additionally, this is a trust problem. People who do not > work with computers at this level do not feel that they are in control > and this raises their defences and prompts questions of this kind. > > To sum up, my questions are: > > * Does something like this make sense? > * Does something like this already exist and I have not noticed it? > * Are there other ways of doing something like this without needing more > code? > * Is this something that is technically possible for reasoners? I assume > so but getting expert > advice is usually a good idea. > * If the first two questions are in the negative: is there anyone in the > community working > on something like this that I could collaborate with? Even if it is just > in a UAT style where > I run my dataset and send back any funny results. > > Thank you for reading and thanks in advance. > > All the best, > Christopher Yocum >
Received on Saturday, 16 July 2022 11:59:10 UTC