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.
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….
(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
Daml-compliant inference engines should respond to client requests with “reasonable explanation” in the daml language
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
Provenance or other annotations on information
W3C – Contact:
Cwm will handle explanation and validation sometime
Stanford – Contact:
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
Explanation implementation of Stanford's design initial test subsumption,
why assertion NOT assertable and make recommendations
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 firstname.lastname@example.org to update.
Build and maintain list of contacts on explanation work on RDF-compliant systems – McGuinness
Build a test ontology and set of test cases
Possible domains – wine ontology, ….
Draft DAML+OIL/owl spec for shareable proofs
Obtain comments on draft spec for shareable proofs - - Karlsruhe, RKF(SRI, KM, Northwestern, Boeing, …), Cycorp, …
(at least Stanford and Cycorp)
List of heuristics for pruning/presenting explanations