- From: Jos De_Roo <jos.deroo@agfa.com>
- Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2003 01:46:57 +0200
- To: "Sandro Hawke <sandro" <sandro@w3.org>
- Cc: Dejing Dou <dejing.dou@yale.edu>, Deborah McGuinness <dlm@belo.Stanford.EDU>, Drew McDermott <drew.mcdermott@yale.edu>, Jerome Euzenat <Jerome.Euzenat@inrialpes.fr>, Paulo Pinheiro da Silva <pp@ksl.stanford.edu>, sandro@roke.hawke.org, sw-team@w3.org, www-archive@w3.org
[followup email cc'ed w3c archive] Many thanks for the meeting http://www.w3.org/2003/04/29/swad/ and the irc log http://www.w3.org/2003/04/29-sw-team-irc and this is followup of [[ 18:19:45 [ericP-scribe] jos: +testing 2nd opinions by idependent reasoners 18:19:55 [DanC] 2nd opinion test cases... pointer? could you follow up in email with pointers? ]] It's just a test case at http://www.agfa.com/w3c/2002/10/medicad/op/ It illustrates the same conclusion of 2 independent reasoners (cwm and euler) for the same theory. It also illustrates a second opinion based on 2 independent theories (one on a more accurate mathematical basis and a simpler one using the golden cut number which could stand for 2 orthopedists) and in all cases there is agreement about the conclusion. The proofs should make the different evidences transparent. -- , Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/
Received on Tuesday, 29 April 2003 19:49:06 UTC