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

Vipul-
  In the first OWL group there were a number of features that we  
couldn't get consensus on a conclusion to (Part-whole being a good  
example) where we took the approach that we should provide the tools  
to define these things, rather than try to specify them.  Given the  
current state of explanation research, my instinct is that we could  
probably do that in this case by making the annotation mechanism a  
little stronger, and letting people build their own for the things  
you suggest for now - after those have been out and deployed, we  
might get more consensus (note that I use a lot of non-tableaux based  
procedural reasoners in my new work, so how you would explain the  
proofs could be arbitrarily hard)
  -JH


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.
>

"If we knew what we were doing, it wouldn't be called research, would  
it?." - Albert Einstein

Prof James Hendler				http://www.cs.rpi.edu/~hendler
Tetherless World Constellation Chair
Computer Science Dept
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy NY 12180