[protege-discussion] evalyation of ontology

[Alex Shkotin]

Timothy,

it is like -

you: my ontology is consistent.

he: show me your proof.

you: I did not prove it. DL-reasoner has told me.

he: but what about your own proof?

Alex

2010/9/1 Timothy Redmond <tredmond at stanford.edu>

>  On 09/01/2010 01:08 AM, Tale Lawrence wrote:
>
> Thanks so much. I have used the reasoner and there was no inconsistency.
> but you in the academics they still want some other things like mathematical
> proofs for the research to be accepted. this is the problem I am having.
>
>
> Mathematical proofs of what?  I think that such an evaluation of the
> ontology would somehow depend on an analysis of what the ontology is
> intended  to do.
>
> -Timothy
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> protege-discussion mailing list
> protege-discussion at lists.stanford.edu
> https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/protege-discussion
>
> Instructions for unsubscribing:
> http://protege.stanford.edu/doc/faq.html#01a.03
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.stanford.edu/pipermail/protege-discussion/attachments/20100902/92bce173/attachment.html>