- From: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2007 11:49:02 -0400
- To: "Kashyap, Vipul" <VKASHYAP1@PARTNERS.ORG>
- Cc: "public-semweb-lifesci hcls" <public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org>
Soundness isn't the same, because we can lie (tell wrong facts) to the reasoner, which will (soundly) repeat back the lies. That's the sort of thing that happens when we use is_a instead of part_of in our ontologies. -Alan On Mar 15, 2007, at 11:38 AM, Kashyap, Vipul wrote: > >> Just to clarify, because "sound and complete" is often used in a >> different sense: I don't mean sound and complete in the sense it is >> used in describing the properties of reasoning algorithms. I meant >> this >> statement with respect to the quality of answers to questions asked >> within our domain of interest: Biology/Life Sciences. The former >> only >> depends on the algorithm. The latter depends on what's in our KB, and >> how we ask the questions. > > [VK] I guess soundness is still the same, don't want "wrong" > answers to be > returned in any case. But completeness would be based on the what's > there in the > virtual integrated DB/KB. > > Cheers, > > ---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 Thursday, 15 March 2007 15:48:49 UTC