McGuinness Oct 17, 20021

Eurasian Pygmy Owl -Glaucidium passerinum – picture Romek Mikusek

Explanation BOF Moderator: Deborah McGuinness

McGuinness Oct 17, 20022

BOF GoalsBOF Goals

Identify needs for explanation/proof work from the daml community

Identify who has plans to work on DAML+OIL/OWL explanation/proof work

Generate list of actionable items.

Significant issues

Recommendations/plan of action

Discussion of “good” proofs (explanations)

McGuinness Oct 17, 20023

MotivationMotivation

Trust disclosure – trust inference rules, premises, recency, inference engine, …

Interoperability – multiple owls interacting, proof composition, …

Proof reuse – individual reuse, individual refinement, group reuse/refinement….

McGuinness Oct 17, 20024

IssuesIssues

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,…)

McGuinness Oct 17, 20025

Issues, continuedIssues, 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 Google’s 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

McGuinness Oct 17, 20026

Plans/PeoplePlans/People W3C – Contact: Berners-Lee, Connolly,…

Cwm will handle explanation and validation sometime

Stanford – Contact: McGuinness http://www.ksl.stanford.edu/projects/daml/Proof/

DAML+OIL/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 ReedExplanation implementation of Stanford's design initial

test subsumption, why assertion NOT assertable and make

recommendations

Agfa - Contact: Jos de Roo

McGuinness Oct 17, 20027

Plans/People cont.Plans/People cont.

Teknowledge - Contact – Adam PeaseProof pruning, coordination

UWF/IMHC - Contact - Pat HayesDesigning proofs for good explanation

Northeastern University - Contact - Mitch KokarOntology for inconsistencies in DAML

get pointer from pat on lcf….

McGuinness will maintain list – send mail to dlm@ksl.stanford.edu to update.

McGuinness Oct 17, 20028

Actionable itemsActionable 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 DAML+OIL/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

McGuinness Oct 17, 20029

updates to dlm@ksl.stanford.edu

Barn Owl  Tyto alba; picture Andy Harmer