- From: <jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com>
- Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2002 19:51:02 +0100
- To: dlm@ksl.stanford.edu
- Cc: horrocks@cs.man.ac.uk, www-webont-wg@w3.org
[forgot to say that I also fully support the need for reasoning services] [...] > 2 - another reason to support reasoning services is so that an application > can not only make a conclusion but also so that the application can defend > or justify the conclusion. > I have been spending time lately with analysts trying to understand how we > can make systems more useful to them and their consistent number one > criterian is understanding the results of a system, thus understanding > when they can truly trust the system to come to the same conclusion they > would. > When an underlying system has well defined semantics, the foundation for > providing justifications to the implicit facts (not just the explict > facts) is available. I think that you couln't be more right! I'm feeling in a meta-stable position w.r.t. to explainability as from the one side belonging to the proof layer and from the other side being quite straightforward to do (now) -- Jos
Received on Sunday, 20 January 2002 13:52:28 UTC