- 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