



Identify needs for explanation/proof work from
the daml community 

Identify who has plans to work on DAML+OIL/OWL
explanation/proof work 

Generate list of actionable items. 

Significant issues 

Recommendations/plan of action 

Discussion of “good” proofs (explanations) 






Trust disclosure – trust inference rules,
premises, recency, inference engine, … 

Interoperability – multiple owls interacting,
proof composition, … 

Proof reuse – individual reuse, individual
refinement, group reuse/refinement…. 




Variable granularity (lcf, pruning, etc) 

Degree of annotation for human readability (human paraphrase in addition to
machine readability) 

Agents should be able to verify proofs 

Proofs should be “nestable” and “queryable
and/or reexecutable” 

Proof language should be ubiquitous 

Proofs should be incremental 

Confidence in proof steps should be expressible 

Damlcompliant inference engines should respond
to client requests with “reasonable explanation” in the daml language 

Identifying rules (naming,…) 








System needs to be extensible with respect to
inference rules, … 

Should include black box algorithms with trust
annotation on black box 

What is trust? Trust of inference rules, agent (might have
additional granularity), source.
Look at solutions such as delegated trust in n3 

Proofs with true but not useful information
need techniques for pruning 

Are there techniques like Google’s reverse links
that can help? 

If you want a “good explanation” that may impact
the proof spec. And what is a
“good explanation” 

Where do ground facts ground out (what granularity) 

Provenance or other annotations on information 





W3C – Contact: BernersLee, Connolly,… 

Cwm will handle explanation and validation
sometime 

Stanford – Contact: McGuinness 

http://www.ksl.stanford.edu/projects/daml/Proof/ 

DAML+OIL/OWL specification of proofs, examples,
challenges… 

Implementation of explanation/proof browser for
proofs/inference webs 

JTP reasoner is being made compatible with proof
spec 

Cycorp –
Contact: Steve Reed 

Explanation implementation of Stanford's design
initial test subsumption, 

why
assertion NOT assertable and make recommendations 

Agfa  Contact:
Jos de Roo 





Teknowledge  Contact – Adam Pease 

Proof pruning, coordination 

UWF/IMHC  Contact  Pat Hayes 

Designing proofs for good explanation 

Northeastern University  Contact  Mitch Kokar 

Ontology for inconsistencies in DAML 

get pointer from pat on lcf…. 

McGuinness will maintain list – send mail to dlm@ksl.stanford.edu
to update. 





Build and maintain list of contacts on
explanation work on RDFcompliant systems – McGuinness 

Build a test ontology and set of test cases 

Possible domains – wine ontology, …. 

Draft DAML+OIL/owl spec for shareable
proofs and architecture 

Obtain comments on draft spec for shareable
proofs   Karlsruhe, RKF(SRI, KM, Northwestern, Boeing, …), Cycorp, … 

Interoperability tests (at least Stanford and Cycorp) 

List of heuristics for pruning/presenting
explanations 





