Re: comments on Editor's Draft of UCR -- motivates links

My apologies, Peter. You're right.  I had missed the point on this one.

"Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@inf.unibz.it> wrote on 06/28/2006 
05:15:39 PM:

> The "default behaviour" requirement is not at all about default rules. 
It
> is instead about handling constructs that are not understood.
> 
> For example, one such default behaviour would be to turn any non-strict
> rules (default rules, negated rules, or whatever) into strict rules for
> systems that only have strict rules.  Another default behaviour would be 
to
> just ignore such rules. 
> 
> peter
> 
> 
> 
> From: Leora Morgenstern <leora@us.ibm.com>
> Subject: Re: comments on Editor's Draft of UCR -- motivates links
> Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2006 15:48:36 -0400
> 
> > 
> > Peter, 
> > 
> > 
> > > > > Default behaviour
> > > > > 
> > > > >    RIF must specify at the appropriate level of detail the 
default
> > > > >    behavior that is expected from a RIF compliant application 
that
> > > > >    does not have the capability to process all or part of the
> > rules
> > > > >    described in a RIF document, or it must provide a way to
> > specify
> > > > >    such default behavior.
> > > > > 
> > > > >    not motivated by Use Case 2.2, Use Case 2.4, Use Case 
> > > > > 2.5, Use Case
> > > > >    2.6 
> > > > 
> > > > From use case 2.6:
> > > > 
> > > > "This use case illustrates how the RIF makes it possible to merge
> > > > rulesets from diverse sources in diverse formats into one 
rule-based
> > > > system, thereby enabling inferences that might otherwise have
> > remained
> > > > implicit."
> > > > 
> > > > This rule-based system may get rules that it can't (completely)
> > process
> > > > and involves important medical decisions so I'd say that default
> > > > behavior is motivated.
> > > 
> > > I still don't see this as part of the use case.  I don't see how the
> > use
> > > case speaks to partial understanding of rule sets.  On the contrary, 
I
> > > would say that this use case speaks to the necessity of *complete*
> > > processing of rule sets, because otherwise some important rule might
> > no be
> > > processed accurately and someone might die.
> > > 
> > 
> > I believe the point David is making --- and with which I agree --- is
> > that many medical rules are better expressed as default rules than as
> > universal rules. For example, in this use case (2.6), the rule 
> > 
> > "If an oral monotherapy at recommended doses of a sulfonylurea or
> > biguanide, combined with lifestyle changes, is ineffective, then the
> > monotherapy should be replaced by an oral bitherapy." 
> > 
> > would be better expressed as a default: 
> > 
> > "If an oral monotherapy at recommended doses of a sulfonylurea or
> > biguanide, combined with lifestyle changes, is ineffective, then the
> > monotherapy should *usually* be replaced by an oral bitherapy." 
> > 
> > using whatever means you prefer to express defaults (eg., abnormality
> > predicates).  There are, after all, probably exceptions to this rule:
> > there many be another class of drugs worth trying as a monotherapy, or
> > the patient's particular medical situation may contradict an oral
> > bitherapy and may necessitate insulin injections. And one would want 
to
> > be able to specify these exceptions in the rules. 
> > 
> > I agree that slightly modifying this use case would better highlight 
the
> > need for defaults, and I'd be happy to make such a modification for 
the
> > next draft. 
> > 
> > By the way, use case 2.10 shows a clear need for defaults. That case
> > includes the rule: 
> > 
> > "Every movie produced before 1930 is black and white." 
> > 
> > Actually, *most* movies were black and white, but some were in color;
> > there were different coloring technologies introduced early on,
> > including an early version of Technicolor introduced in 1917. Not that
> > I'm a movie buff or anything ;) ; the point just is the need for
> > defaults. 
> > 
> > 
> > > > > OWL data
> > > > > 
> > > > >    RIF must cover OWL knowledge bases as data where compatible
> > with
> > > > >    Phase 1 semantics.
> > > > > 
> > > > >    not motivated by Use Case 2.4, Use Case 2.6
> > > > 
> > > > While 2.6 doesn't specifically mention OWL, it does mention
> > ontologies
> > > > as a possible data source. I think parts of SNOMED have been
> > translated
> > > > to OWL, but I'm no expert.
> > > 
> > > Sure, but you can write (very, very, very) simple ontologies in just
> > RDFS,
> > > so there is no demonstrated need for OWL. 
> > 
> > I believe the point is that  parts of SNOMED have actually been
> > translated to OWL, or that there are intentions to do so. If parts of
> > SNOMED are or will be in OWL, then the RIF will have to handle OWL in
> > order to use SNOMED. Whether or not these ontologies could have been
> > represented in a simpler language is irrelevant. 
> > 
> > 
> > > 
> > > Note that many of my complaints could be addressed by appropriate
> > > modification of the use cases. 
> > 
> > Absolutely.
> > 
> > Leora