Re: Validating daml+oil-ex.daml

From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider (pfps@research.bell-labs.com)
Date: 11/01/01

Next message: Frank van Harmelen: "Re: Validating daml+oil-ex.daml"
Previous message: Deborah McGuinness: "Re: Validating daml+oil-ex.daml"
In reply to: Deborah McGuinness: "Re: Validating daml+oil-ex.daml"
Next in thread: Pat Hayes: "Re: Validating daml+oil-ex.daml"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Mail actions: [ respond to this message ] [ mail a new topic ]

From: Deborah McGuinness <dlm@KSL.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: Re: Validating daml+oil-ex.daml
Date: Thu, 01 Nov 2001 12:17:51 -0800

> I endorse option 3 below  but want to make clear that my interpretation of
> option 3 means that it is a strong feature of the bbn validator and of chimaera
> that they check for "soft" constraints.
> I have found with almost all of our passes over ontologies that soft constraint
> "violations" are a source of issues that need human cycles to look at them to
> either fix them or confirm that they are meant.

Agreed, strongly.

peter

Next message: Frank van Harmelen: "Re: Validating daml+oil-ex.daml"
Previous message: Deborah McGuinness: "Re: Validating daml+oil-ex.daml"
In reply to: Deborah McGuinness: "Re: Validating daml+oil-ex.daml"
Next in thread: Pat Hayes: "Re: Validating daml+oil-ex.daml"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Mail actions: [ respond to this message ] [ mail a new topic ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : 04/02/02 EST