Search Mailing List Archives


Limit search to: Subject & Body Subject Author
Sort by: Reverse Sort
Limit to: All This Week Last Week This Month Last Month
Select Date Range     through    

[protege-discussion] evalyation of ontology

Timothy Redmond tredmond at stanford.edu
Thu Sep 2 09:21:50 PDT 2010


Again I think that this issue depends on what you are trying to do.   
It is true that many journals that would tend not to accept a proof by  
pellet as valid but these journals are probably not relevant to what  
you are trying to do.

As a mathematical theorem the consistency of an ontology is not that  
interesting.  You would not expect to find such a theorem in a  
mathematics journal for instance.  But presumably the consistency of  
the ontology is important in some context.  You are  trying to do  
something with the ontology - perhaps it will be used in an  
application.  A paper that discusses an ontology in that context could  
probably reference a mechanical proof by a tool such as pellet quite  
easily.  If there was any  question about the validity of a mechanical  
proof then there would be quite a volume of research that could be  
referenced about the decidability of consistency  checking and how  
such algorithms are designed.

-Timothy


On Sep 1, 2010, at 10:02 PM, Alex Shkotin wrote:

> 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20100902/0ccd1a3e/attachment.html>


More information about the protege-discussion mailing list