Re: [DIG-users] Towards DIG 2.0 - suggestions

[Ronald C. <R.C...@am...>]

Well, let's jump on this train...

I'ld like to see the functionality as described below added to DIG 2.0.
I agree that these need to be in an optional extension for numerous reasons.
The most important probably being that this functionality offers highly 
implementation-dependent results.
I.e. there is not guarantee that the results are sound or complete, and one 
implementation may give different results than another.

Another addition could be approximate reasoning, e.g. providing 
classification result after a certain amount of time.

What I would really really like to see, is the possibility to retrieve 
concept (and role) definitions through DIG.
I think this is already envisioned for 2.0, but I'm not sure... Is there 
any reference where I can check this?

Oh, and some more management (e.g. retrieval of tboxes, selection of 
'active' tbox) would be welcomed as well.
RACER does a good job in this, but it can't be done via the DIG interface, 
I think.

Looking forward to other suggestions, and the appearance of DIG 2.0 of course!

Cheers, Ronald

At 10:32 17-10-05 +0200, Olaf Noppens wrote:
>Hi all,
>
>We have studied SW reasoning especially in the context of ontology
>authoring tools (like our OntoTrack editor). Beyond traditional
>batch-oriented reasoning services we strongly believe that
>non-standard inference play an import role in the future not only
>in the context of ontology engineering and maintaining.
>
>As an example, consider the newly proposed services of computing the
>last common/good subsumer [1], explanations for subsumption [2],
>or debugging [3].
>
>We therefore propose the following for a DIG 2.0 specification:
>(1) distinguish between a core DIG and optional extensions (e.g.
>bullet (3) ): these optional extensions may cover non-standard
>inference services that not all core-DIG compliant reasoner will support
>(2) support for information removal from a knowledge base
>(3) publish-subscriber mechanism for tbox (and maybe abox) changes.
>
>Some of our ongoing work will cover xml schema definitions for (2)
>and (3) and we will implement a prototypical publish-subscriber
>extension as a mediator component on top of a DIG compliant
>reasoner.
>
>For now, we would like to hear if other parties agree with these ideas
>and open the discussion towards DIG 2.0  :-)
>
>
>If any of you will attend ISWC or OWL Experience Workshop we should take
>the opportunity to discuss further steps.
>
>Best regards
>
>         Olaf and Thorsten
>
>
>[1] Computing the Least Common Subsumer w.r.t. a Background Terminology,
>Baader & Sertkaya & Turhan, DL2004
>[2] A Tableau-based Explainer for DL Subsumption, Liebig & Halfmann,
>TABLEAUX 05
>[3] Black box techniques for debugging unsatisfiable concepts, Kalyanpur
>& Parisa & Sirin  DL2005
>
>--
>University of Ulm, Germany
>
>
>
>-------------------------------------------------------
>This SF.Net email is sponsored by:
>Power Architecture Resource Center: Free content, downloads, discussions,
>and more. http://solutions.newsforge.com/ibmarch.tmpl
>_______________________________________________
>DIG-users mailing list
>DIG...@li...
>https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dig-users


######################################################################
Ronald Cornet, M.Sc.                        email: R.C...@am...
dept. of Medical Informatics                phone: +31 (0)20 566 5188
Academic Medical Center, Room J1B-114        fax:   +31 (0)20 691 9840
P.O.Box 22700
1100 DE  Amsterdam
The Netherlands                             'The truth is out there'