|
|
|
|
|
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 |
|
Daml-compliant 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: Berners-Lee, 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 [email protected]
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 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 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Notes