OWL Lit Briefing

1
Explanation BOF Moderator Deborah McGuinness
Eurasian Pygmy Owl -Glaucidium passerinum
picture Romek Mikusek
2
BOF Goals

• Identify needs for explanation/proof work from
  the daml community
• Identify who has plans to work on DAMLOIL/OWL
  explanation/proof work
• Generate list of actionable items.
• Significant issues
• Recommendations/plan of action
• Discussion of good proofs (explanations)

3
Motivation

• Trust disclosure trust inference rules,
  premises, recency, inference engine,
• Interoperability multiple owls interacting,
  proof composition,
• Proof reuse individual reuse, individual
  refinement, group reuse/refinement.

4
Issues

• 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,)

5
Issues, continued

• 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 Googles 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

6
Plans/People

• W3C Contact Berners-Lee, Connolly,
• Cwm will handle explanation and validation
  sometime
• Stanford Contact McGuinness
• http//www.ksl.stanford.edu/projects/daml/Proof/
• DAMLOIL/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

7
Plans/People cont.

• 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_at_ksl.stanford.edu to update.

8
Actionable items

• 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 DAMLOIL/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

9
updates to dlm_at_ksl.stanford.edu
Barn Owl  Tyto alba picture Andy Harmer