Proof Explanation in the DR-DEVICE System

Trust is a vital feature for Semantic Web: If users (humans and agents) are to use and integrate system answers, they must trust them. Thus, systems should be able to explain their actions, sources, and beliefs, and this issue is the topic of the proof layer in the design of the Semantic Web. This paper presents the design and implementation of a system for proof explanation on the Semantic Web, based on defeasible reasoning. The basis of this work is the DR-DEVICE system that is extended to handle proofs. A critical aspect is the representation of proofs in an XML language, which is achieved by a RuleML language extension

Web Explanations for Semantic Heterogeneity Discovery

Managing semantic heterogeneity is a complex task. One solution involves matching like terms to each other. We view Match as an operator that takes two graph-like structures (e.g.,concept hierarchies or ontologies) and returns a mapping between the nodes of the graphs that correspond semantically to each other. While some state of the art matching systems may produce effective mappings, these mappings may not be intuitively obvious to human users. In order for users to trust the mappings, and thus, use them, they need information about them (e.g.,they need access to the sources that were used to determine semantic correspondences between terms). In this paper we describe how a matching system can explain its answers using the Inference Web (IW) infrastructure thus making the matching process transparent. The proposed solution is based on the assumption that mappings are computed by logical reasoning. There,S-Match a semantic matching system, produces proofs and explanations for mappings it has discovered

Environmental aspects of flame‐retardant textiles ‐an overview

Industries throughout the world are being compelled into reviewing their manufacturing processes and disposal techniques because of the implementation of stricter regulations by local and national governments. This paper will attempt to outline some of the areas of concern regarding flame‐retardant textiles and highlight areas that require stricter control. In considering a full environmental audit of any chosen flame‐retardant textile, comparisons between competing products are neither simple nor, at present, possible. Environmental audits for current flame‐retardant finished cotton and inherently flame‐retardant polyester are undertaken and compared in order to illustrate this complexity. Any given product appears to have a similar environmental impact to others of the same generic type

Environmental aspects of flame‐retardant textiles ‐an overview

Industries throughout the world are being compelled into reviewing their manufacturing processes and disposal techniques because of the implementation of stricter regulations by local and national governments. This paper will attempt to outline some of the areas of concern regarding flame‐retardant textiles and highlight areas that require stricter control. In considering a full environmental audit of any chosen flame‐retardant textile, comparisons between competing products are neither simple nor, at present, possible. Environmental audits for current flame‐retardant finished cotton and inherently flame‐retardant polyester are undertaken and compared in order to illustrate this complexity. Any given product appears to have a similar environmental impact to others of the same generic type