W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xg-urw3@w3.org > July 2007

Re: [URW3 public] Re: [URW3] ... three questions based on the last telecon

From: Peter Vojtas <Peter.Vojtas@mff.cuni.cz>
Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2007 15:23:30 +0200
Message-ID: <469B7152.7050008@mff.cuni.cz>
To: public-xg-urw3@w3.org

Hi Mitch

Mitch Kokar wrote:
> I just wanted to add a few words of clarification to the lively discussion.
> 1. The URW3 ontology on our web site is in OWL (see
> http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/urw3/wiki/UncertaintyOntology?action=Attach
> File&do=get&target=Uncertainty.owl). As it is now, it is just OWL-DL.
> 2. The intent was to have an ontology to annotate use cases, and not to
> develop a full ontology for reasoning about uncertainty. If we jump into the
> details, we will loose our focus and will not accomplish our goal.
I agree that we have to focus to accomplish our goal - see chapter (so 
these are not only use cases, but we have a structure of the final 
report - is this uncertainty ontology sufficient for annotating all 
arguments in this report - I am a little bit concerned)
> 3. I suggest that we draw the separation line between the annotation of the
> uncertainty of a sentence and what the sentence is about. Other communities
> are working on the latter issue, so I suggest we just focus on the former. 
But then we do not need any extension of W3C standards, we just 
introduce several key words

What the sentence is about is important for our decision about 
uncertainty assignment - e.g. if I know a contradicting information, or 
a consequence from a trusted site, it will influence my uncertainty 
Uncertainty about the weather is no more uncertain when the tome is gone
> 4. However, if we want to be at least a little more specific and try to
> satisfy some of the concerns that Peter has raised, we could add one more
> property to the ontology, e.g., "includesSentence" whose domain and range is
> Sentence. In that way we could show that a particular sentence is a complex
> sentence that includes other sentences as components, where those other
> sentences can have their own uncertainty. If there is support for this, I
> can make changes in the current URW3 OWL ontology.
yes, or even "IsAboutSentence".
> In summary, although I agree that OWL has (lots of) limitations, I would
> rather use a language that has formal semantics, rather than trying to
> propose a new language at this point. This might turn out to be necessary in
> the future, but for now I hope OWL is sufficient.
I fully agree
> ==Mitch
Received on Monday, 16 July 2007 13:23:35 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 19:50:54 UTC