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: Mitch Kokar <mkokar@vistology.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2007 06:50:43 -0400
To: "'Kathryn Blackmond Laskey'" <klaskey@gmu.edu>, "'Ken Laskey'" <klaskey@mitre.org>, <Peter.Vojtas@mff.cuni.cz>
Cc: <public-xg-urw3@w3.org>
Message-ID: <E1IB76c-0004Jq-37@maggie.w3.org>

This is a good point. So in one of my previous emails I suggested that we
have "complex sentences", i.e., sentences consisting of multiple sentences.
Then each sentence could have uncertainty assigned to it. I still think an
"elementary sentence" could be assigned a probability. For complex sentences
we could have probabilities for the sentences that are "part of" the
sentence, as well as the overall probability for the complex sentence. This
would provide the flexibility that you are asking for, right?



   > -----Original Message-----
   > From: public-xg-urw3-request@w3.org 
   > [mailto:public-xg-urw3-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of 
   > Kathryn Blackmond Laskey
   > Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2007 11:31 PM
   > To: Ken Laskey; Peter.Vojtas@mff.cuni.cz
   > Cc: public-xg-urw3@w3.org
   > Subject: Re: [URW3 public] Re: [URW3] ... three questions 
   > based on the last telecon
   > >>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.
   > I note here that probability is not truth-functional.  
   > That is, if I know the probability of A and the 
   > probability of B, I don't necessarily know the probability 
   > of A-and-B.  This is a very important characteristic of 
   > probability. It is a source of great power, and it is also 
   > the reason straightforward attempts to do uncertainty 
   > propagation by attaching "certainty factors" to 
   > propositions and rules works only in very constrained 
   > problems.  This is important for us, because annotating 
   > sentences with uncertainty values isn't going to work for 
   > many interesting problems.
   > Kathy
Received on Wednesday, 18 July 2007 10:50:07 UTC

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