- From: Ken Laskey <klaskey@mitre.org>
- Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2007 23:02:13 -0400
- To: Peter.Vojtas@mff.cuni.cz
- Cc: public-xg-urw3@w3.org
see inline -Ken On Jul 16, 2007, at 9:23 AM, Peter Vojtas wrote: > > 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 So it appears that I may need to convey information on what influenced my uncertainty assignment. Note, this is not saying I need to represent what the sentence is about but rather I may need to point to the mechanisms that were developed by "other communities" and that I am using as the (or a) basis of my assessment. As to whether we need any extension of W3C standards, that remains to be seen. We are fairly certain that the current standards are insufficient for our purposes, but it is not yet certain that sufficient extensions will be identified within the current structures. Note, I am not saying there aren't feasible extensions, only that we have yet to prove that point. >> 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". +1 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 A point of consensus! (Something your chairs are supposed to foster and recognize :-) ) Let's make use of it. >> ==Mitch > Peter > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ----- 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 03:02:04 UTC