W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xg-urw3@w3.org > July 2007

[URW3 public] OWL extensions [was Re: [URW3] ... three questions based on the last telecon]

From: Ken Laskey <klaskey@mitre.org>
Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2007 08:01:38 -0400
Message-Id: <61324e386b992d58ef908fc3e4fff9d7@mitre.org>
Cc: public-xg-urw3@w3.org
To: Peter.Vojtas@mff.cuni.cz

Let me make a suggestion of a minimum criteria for adding extensions:

an extension can be proposed only if you can show its use in the  
context of an already discussed use case.

This is motivated by several thoughts:
1. we will have solid examples of the extension;
2. we can more easily compare value of the extension against others  
proposed;
3. we move forward our analysis of the use cases;
4. if proposed extensions can be demonstrated only in the context of  
use cases already discussed, some of you will have the motivation to  
volunteer for leading the discussion at future telecons :-)

Do we have agreement on this proposal?

Ken

P.S. per survey results, I will be setting up telecons for August 1,  
August 22, September 5, and September 19.

On Jul 18, 2007, at 7:20 AM, Peter Vojtas wrote:

>
> Colleagues,
>            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
> uncertainty.
>      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 soved
> 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
>
>
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------ 
-----
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 12:01:45 GMT

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