IW Meeting 2013-01-23

From Inference Web

Jump to: navigation, search

How to distinguish Justifcation of the query fromt the query that it's answering?

NLP Question -> Query.

Provenance of the query differentaite provenance of the query from the answers derived from the execution of the query.

:question a pml:Question; prov:value "What day is it?" .

:query 
   a pml:Query; prov:value "?x rdf:type :Today." .
   prov:wasDerivedFrom :question;
.

:answer_1
    a pml:Answer;
    prov:value "Tuesday";
    prov:wasDerivedFrom :query;
.
:answer_2
    a pml:Answer;
    prov:value "Wednesday";
    prov:wasDerivedFrom :query;
.

:query prov:hadDerivation :answer_1, :answer_2 .

http://inference-web.org/wiki/PML_3.0 -> 

Are we adding Refutation: at least one antecedent, and one is NOT propogated to conclusion. The conclusion is negated from what you are discharging.

Paulo, good b/c We are discharging the metabinding too.

discharging a variable mapping

How to model an OR introduction?

X || Y, prove Y
A || B; discharge A, discharge B.

3 conversations:

  • InferenceStep Activities that Discharge with prov:invalidated
  • Plans that are capable of Discharging when they are applied
  • Typing successful InferenceStep Discharge Activities with the Plan that it applied.

How to invalidate at the same time? (Tim: two Derivations with the same InferenceStep Activity?)

Need to say in the spec: What is the criteria for adopting PML 2 into PML 3, or excluding it. What is the strategy that we use to determine what terms/concepts make it into PML 3?

  • Deborah: stuff to support Q&A
  • Stuff Tim "gets".
Personal tools
Navigation