- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- Date: Mon, 05 Nov 2007 03:31:13 -0500 (EST)
- To: VKASHYAP1@PARTNERS.ORG
- Cc: bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk, public-owl-wg@w3.org
From: "Kashyap, Vipul" <VKASHYAP1@PARTNERS.ORG> Subject: RE: ISSUE-52 (Explanations): Specification of OWL equivalences and rewriting rules for explaining inferences Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2007 17:22:00 -0400 > > From: Vipul Kashyap > > > 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. > From: Bijan Parsia > > > > IMO, no. > > Wondering if you think this is a scope or a relevance issue. I agree with Bijan that the WG should not look at explanations for several reasons, including both scope and relevance: 1/ You haven't demonstrated a need for explanations. (This is not to say that there is not a need, but that requests for extra functionality should only be considered if there is a demonstrated need.) 2/ This is a large addition to the work of the WG, and thus is probably out of scope. 3/ Although there has been work on explanation generation, I do not believe that there is any consensus on how to present them to users. 4/ Presenting extra information to users is largely a task of UI tools, so its inclusion in a language spec is problematic. [...] Peter F. Patel-Schneider
Received on Monday, 5 November 2007 08:42:54 UTC