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: Ken Laskey <klaskey@mitre.org>
Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2007 22:26:23 -0400
Message-Id: <e854384f02a0ac012e3ce1bbc89e241d@mitre.org>
Cc: <Peter.Vojtas@mff.cuni.cz>, "'Mike Pool'" <mpool@convera.com>, <public-xg-urw3@w3.org>
To: "Giorgos Stoilos" <gstoil@image.ece.ntua.gr>

On Jul 16, 2007, at 7:33 AM, Giorgos Stoilos wrote:

> Guys, I don't think that using RDF triples to represent not only  
> uncertainty
> but even knowledge on the web has anything to do with reason :); even  
> worse
> using reification.
> As I said in my previous mail, I don't see how language extensions (or  
> ways
> to represent uncertainty using W3C standards) have anything to do with  
> an
> uncertainty ontology?
> Moreover, is it in this group's goal to propose such extensions or to
> identify them?
It is the goal of this group (per  the charter) to look at what  
uncertainty information needs to be captured, e.g. is a numerical value  
attached to a sentence/proposition/... sufficient?  Under what  
circumstances is a numerical value sufficient?  When it is not  
sufficient, what else is needed?

While we can make "obvious" suggestions (should such suggestions become  
obvious), it is not within our charter to specify syntax.


P.S. If terminology used in other standards (W3C or otherwise) are  
useful in expressing our concepts, we should not invent new terms where  
none are needed.  On the other hand, we should not feel compelled to  
use terms we feel are inadequate for our needs.

> Finally, if we want to look into such extensions I am in favour of OWL  
> and
> not RDF.
> -gstoil
Ken Laskey
MITRE Corporation, M/S H305      phone: 703-983-7934
7151 Colshire Drive                         fax:       703-983-1379
McLean VA 22102-7508
Received on Wednesday, 18 July 2007 02:26:06 UTC

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