Re: ISSUE-52 (Explanations): Specification of OWL equivalences and rewriting rules for explaining inferences

Sent a note to Vipul directly, but then realized it should go to list.

Basically, I'm not sure exactly what is meant by this. It would be  
helpful for me to get some pseudo owl examples of what this would  
look like.

Regards,
Alan


On Nov 3, 2007, at 1:28 PM, Kashyap, Vipul wrote:

> Clarification on this ISSUE-52”
>
>
>
> Would like to propose that constructs for the following “extra- 
> logical ?” features be included in the OWL 1.1 Spec
>
>
>
> Proofs – probably as a sequence of entailments
> Entailments
> Explanations – probably as a human readable verbalizations of  
> entailments
>
>
> The use case for the above is the need for an explanation feature  
> for developing and debugging large scale OWL ontologies.
>
> A standardized specification of the above would enable better tool  
> support for these features enabling sharing of explanations
>
> across tools and applications.. This will increase productivity of  
> the ontology developer.
>
>
>
> Would like to discuss how this ISSUE is viewed as being within or  
> beyond the scope of the current WG.
>
>
>
> ---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.
>