- From: Solbrig, Harold R. <Solbrig.Harold@mayo.edu>
- Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2009 17:11:28 -0600
- To: "Bijan Parsia" <bparsia@cs.manchester.ac.uk>
- Cc: "W3C OWL Working Group" <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
-----Original Message----- From: Bijan Parsia [mailto:bparsia@cs.manchester.ac.uk] Sent: Friday, January 23, 2009 4:58 PM To: Solbrig, Harold R. Cc: W3C OWL Working Group Subject: Re: LC Comment: "Hidden" Axioms On 23 Jan 2009, at 22:46, Solbrig, Harold R. wrote: [snip] >> Let me mention related requirement that we have encountered. We >> have a >> need to be able to classify an ontology and subsequently transmit both >> the asserted and the logical inferences for display and consumption in >> secondary resources such as wikis and other tools. As these tools may >> create additional axioms, we need to differentiate the asserted from >> the >> inferred - both as important information to the editors and to be able >> to remove or ignore these axioms when the modified ontology is >> subsequently re-classified. While this is a slightly different use >> case, >> it still involves the same notion - some sort of tag or property on an >> axiom that affects the way that it is interpreted. > Actually, from a logical point of view the added inferred axioms are > harmless...they were already "in" the annotation. So a simple > annotation which indicates that it was inferred would be fine --- > editors could not display them, or try to verify them, but if some > tool passed it to a reasoner...the reasoner would just have an easier > time :) True only if the editors didn't add (or remove) one or more non-inferred axioms. Then, it would be important to strip the inferred axioms before re-classifying. Obviously, this could be done pre-reasoner as long as the inferred tag was available. > (Of course, if you were trying to *test* the reasoner...putting in the > entailments from some other reasoner wouldn't be good. So there's > still some justification there. I just think it's somewhat less severe.) Interesting point. The "inferred" tag would allow you to combine the input and result of a test cases into a single source. Instead of an input and result, just a one set of defined and inferred axioms. Cheers, Harold Solbrig
Received on Friday, 23 January 2009 23:12:05 UTC