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: Wed, 18 Jul 2007 13:20:18 +0200
Message-ID: <469DF772.6030601@mff.cuni.cz>
To: public-xg-urw3@w3.org

            let me note that this wonderfull discussion has started by
questions about the nature of "sentence" and "proposition", and I have
added a word used by W3C documents "statement" and as an example a
triple. Of course a RIF rule can be also a subject to attachment of an
      I think this can be satisfactory solved by using current W3C
standards and interpretation of them.

      Now the problem has shifted a little bit further, to ontology. My
impression is that we need to have some (easy) examples in the begining
(Ken already assigned some sentences in his use case by uncertainty type
and nature).
      I like Mitch's ontology and so far only few extensions were
sugested - to have properties includesSentence, isaboutSentence and a
new sort of uncertainty models namely Similarity (maybe some other will
appear later - what are our criteria to enter new elements to ontology).
The reification discussion was only an example from my part, and can be 
by Uncertainty has_derivation objective/subjective.

      I have also an idea and would like to ask ou for opinion. Most of
Ontological knowledge is described by expressions about being an element
and being a subset (equal to), e.g.

owl:oneOf, rdf:type, ... rdfs:subClassOf, ...

what do you think about extensions like

owl_ursw:usualy_oneOf, owl_ursw:often_oneOf, owl_ursw:probably_subClassOf

or we are just going to assign uncertainty to the statement
A rdf:type B, C rdfs:subClassOf D, ...

I agree that sentences can be structured by logical connectives, and I 
would be here very flexible and allow also fuzzy aggregation operators.

On the one side we are not going to specify syntax but we have to show 
current standards are not necessary (of course not because of the syntax 
of current standards - using W3C syntax we have in mind that their 
semantics does not suffice)

Greetings Peter
Received on Wednesday, 18 July 2007 11:20:24 UTC

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