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

Alex Shkotin alex.shkotin at gmail.com
Thu Sep 2 11:41:32 PDT 2010


it was my reaction on text from Tale (see second letter): "...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."

And to prove consistensy we need to present a model, I think.

But to prove inconsistensy of a class we need to prove that this particular
class expression is eq to empty set.
That needs usage of some axioms and derivation rules and may be usefull.

Alex

2010/9/2 Timothy Redmond <tredmond at stanford.edu>

>
> 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
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20100902/09a8fac1/attachment.html>


More information about the protege-discussion mailing list