- From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@isr.umd.edu>
- Date: Mon, 8 Sep 2003 15:42:10 -0400
- To: Ian Horrocks <horrocks@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Cc: "lsp" <lsp@is.pku.edu.cn>, <www-ws@w3.org>
On Saturday, September 6, 2003, at 11:23 AM, Ian Horrocks wrote: [snip] >> Finally, notice that it's somewhat tricky, given the standard DL >> reasoning services, to get even such obvious wins as matchmaking >> right. >> This was brought home to use at the second SWSL F2F by Ian Horrocks >> (he >> has a paper explaining the problem) on using subsumption for >> matchmaking. >> >> (Of course, this isn't exclusively limited to DLs, in general. KR is >> tricky :)) > > It might be interesting to look at work on Abduction in DLs by Donini > et al (WWW2003 [1] and IJCAI2003), and on "non-standard inferences", > e.g., [2]. > > Ian > > [1] http://www2003.org/cdrom/papers/refereed/p601/p601-dinoia.html > [2] > http://lat.inf.tu-dresden.de/research/papers/2003/BrandtKuesters+LPAR- > 03.ps.gz [snip] Yes, I should have mentioned that, especially for matchmaking, various non-standard DL reasoning services seem very promising (actually, I'm sitting behind Ian at DL 2003 during a talk about adding "similarity" constructers in a DL, which is slick; there was another good matchmaking talk). But concept matching and unification, for example, seem to offer useful broadenings. Cleverness still required, IMHO :) Cheers, Bijan Parsia.
Received on Monday, 8 September 2003 15:39:47 UTC