- From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2007 11:15:46 +0000
- To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- Cc: VKASHYAP1@PARTNERS.ORG, public-owl-wg@w3.org
On Nov 5, 2007, at 8:31 AM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote: [snip] > 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. I'll go stronger: there is no evidence on what sorts of normalization and lemma generation are more helpful than confusing. We have field evidence about various presentation features in swoop, but there is still room for experimentation. I am, with Matthew Horridge, currently working on this, but I would not expect this research to be advanced enough for *any* kind of standardization for at least a year. (Though we should have reasonably preliminary results in the next few months.) > 4/ Presenting extra information to users is largely a task of UI > tools, > so its inclusion in a language spec is problematic. Furthermore, there is little need for standardization to promote dissemination. It's not like any of the tool vendors don't want this to work. It's mostly resource boundedness (e.g., Swoop like presentation is coming to Protege4 and OWLSight when we get time to do it). Having to work on standardization would only drain resources from that work. Thus, we can't successfully do it at this time and trying to in this context slows actual, deployed improvement. Cheers, Bijan.
Received on Monday, 5 November 2007 11:17:02 UTC