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 
assignment.
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
Peter
Received on Monday, 16 July 2007 13:23:35 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 30 April 2008 09:52:44 GMT