Is there any work in the literature related to:
- Defining what and when a version is? - Do all updates necessarily lead to a new version? - Is there a utility to instance versioning? The observation about the utility of knowledge base update and revision is an astute one. IMHO the utility of instance versioning is not clear either. Just my 2 cents, ---Vipul > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:public-semweb-lifesci- > [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bijan Parsia > Sent: Friday, January 12, 2007 5:28 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; 'w3c semweb hcls'; public-semweb-lifesci- > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Versioning vs Temporal modeling of Patient State > > > On Jan 12, 2007, at 9:36 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > Recently I had an interesting conversation with Werner Cuesters, > > professor in Bufallo and colleague of Barry Smith. He has some > > theory about ontology maintenance and versioning and it considers > > both "classes" and "instances". Both can change either because you > > made en error, either you view on the world changed, either because > > the world changed . It turns out that you can only handle changes > > if you know for each change exactly what de reason of the change > > was. That reason should be documented in the system. > [snip] > > The standard lingo for this is that a change to the knowledge base > due to a change in the *world* is called an *update* whereas a change > in your knowledge base due to a change in *your knowledge* of the > (current static) world is called a *revision*. The locus classicus > for this, IMHO, is: > <http://citeseer.ist.psu.edu/417296.html> > > Following there model theoretic accounts, there is a spate of work > defining reasoning services that compute the updated or revisied > knowledge base given a proposed update or revision. E.g., recently: > <http://lat.inf.tu-dresden.de/~clu/papers/archive/kr06c.pdf> > > The utility of model oriented revision and update for expressive > logics is, IMHO, not fully established, though it is conceptually > useful in my experience. There is, of course, a large chunk of work > on revising (and even updating) belief *bases*, that is, attending > primarily to the *asserted* set of formulae. > > Hope this helps. > > Cheers, > Bijan. > > THE INFORMATION TRANSMITTED IN THIS ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATION IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE PERSON OR ENTITY TO WHOM IT IS ADDRESSED AND MAY CONTAIN CONFIDENTIAL AND/OR PRIVILEGED MATERIAL. ANY REVIEW, RETRANSMISSION, DISSEMINATION OR OTHER USE OF OR TAKING OF ANY ACTION IN RELIANCE UPON, THIS INFORMATION BY PERSONS OR ENTITIES OTHER THAN THE INTENDED RECIPIENT IS PROHIBITED. IF YOU RECEIVED THIS INFORMATION IN ERROR, PLEASE CONTACT THE SENDER AND THE PRIVACY OFFICER, AND PROPERLY DISPOSE OF THIS INFORMATION.
