- From: Kashyap, Vipul <VKASHYAP1@PARTNERS.ORG>
- Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2007 11:09:23 -0500
- To: "Rinke Hoekstra" <hoekstra@uva.nl>, "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- Cc: <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>, <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
>Explanation is, in my view, related to the way in which reasoners >communicate to clients (UI's) about their internal state, e.g. using >the proposed DIG 2.0 [2] interface. [VK] Would like to clarify that no matter what the internal state of the reasoner, it could always report it's entailments in a standardized format. For example, Fact++ doesn't need to share it's internal state to report OWL 1.1 inferences. It reports those inferences in a standardized format specified by the OWL 1.1 standard. >In fact, the University of Dresden >has written a proposal for an explanation interface as an extension to >DIG 2.0 [3]. The DIG 2.0 proposal does not play a role in the charter >for this WG. And I think inference explanation should not either, >despite its importance and usefulness. [VK] My proposal is more along the lines of Deborah's proposal. The issue of scope is real. Would propose that instead of throwing away the proposal completely, we can figure out a limited and scoped standardization in this round. Regards, ---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.
Received on Monday, 5 November 2007 16:09:41 UTC