- From: Rinke Hoekstra <hoekstra@uva.nl>
- Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2007 20:40:47 +0100
- To: OWL Working Group WG <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
Dear Vipul, others, Your message below raises both a question and a worry on my part. First of all, let me stress that I applaud any effort to make the OWL- somename spec. more accessible to users. My worry is that some ISSUEs are in my view definitely more ISSUE-ish than others. For instance, your ISSUE-52 can be seen as a suggestion, whereas ISSUE-51 (raised by Jim) is a real problem we need to resolve. Perhaps, and I don't know if you and others agree, it would be best to not be too eager in posting issues that do not have a high problem- rating as dealing with issues is a rather bureaucratic process (e.g. we all need to agree that the issue is resolved). Especially if the issue/suggestion could just as well be discussed on the mailinglist *before* being posted as a real ISSUE. Secondly, my question is whether and where we should draw the line between: a) making the OWL-somename *specification* more accessible to users, and b) providing *educational* material explaining the consequences of the technicalities in the spec. As I understand it, the discussion about user-facing documents is more about a) than about b), and I think your issue might just cross the border between a) and b) and is perhaps more at home with a group like SWEO? Just my 2,901 cents (at the current exchange rate) Best, Rinke On 2 nov 2007, at 19:02, OWL Working Group Issue Tracker wrote: > > > ISSUE-52 (Explanations): Specification of OWL equivalences and > rewriting rules for explaining inferences > > http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/tracker/issues/ > > Raised by: Vipul Kashyap > On product: > > I was wondering if the OWL 1.1 effort should also look at ways and > means of standardizing inference explanations, especially to make > them user understandable. > > The current version of P4 has functionality that identifies the > relevant axioms involved in making an inference, but stops short of > explaining how the entailments/consequences of these axioms can be > chained together to create an explanation. > > Towards this end, I was wondering whether well know OWL/DL > equivalences and rewritings should be part of the OWL 1.1 Spec. Some > examples that come to mind are: > > A subClass B ==> (p some A) subClass (p some B) > (p some (A and B)) subclass (p some A) and (p some B) > > I am sure there are many others ... > A standardized approach for explanations of inferences could be a > very useful feature from the user point of view. > > ---------------------------------------------- Drs. Rinke Hoekstra Email: hoekstra@uva.nl Skype: rinkehoekstra Phone: +31-20-5253499 Fax: +31-20-5253495 Web: http://www.leibnizcenter.nl/users/rinke Leibniz Center for Law, Faculty of Law University of Amsterdam, PO Box 1030 1000 BA Amsterdam, The Netherlands ----------------------------------------------
Received on Friday, 2 November 2007 19:40:55 UTC