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: Wed, 18 Jul 2007 08:09:31 -0400
Message-Id: <f844db37e9be5b46c36829a375513e24@mitre.org>
Cc: public-xg-urw3@w3.org
To: Peter.Vojtas@mff.cuni.cz

Peter,

Again the question is what is the purpose of our uncertainty ontology.   
I believe the properties you propose may be important as part of our  
conclusions of what information an _instance_ must eventually convey,  
but is it necessary in our ontology if we are using that as a guide for  
classifying descriptive aspects of uncertainty?

As I note in an email I just sent on criteria for proposing OWL  
extensions, examples of how something would be used are encouraged.

Ken

On Jul 18, 2007, at 7:55 AM, Peter Vojtas wrote:

>
> Ken, what do think about the possibility to solve this in our ontology  
> as it is now by using hasDerivation property and UncertaintyDerivation  
> class should go into details, how it was obtained (e.g. whether  
> methods used agree with the model), from which data and knowledge ...
> Peter
>
> Ken Laskey wrote:
>> Again, I think this implies that a probability value alone is   
>> insufficient because you need to know something about how the value  
>> was  assigned before you can combine it with other probabilities,  
>> i.e.  values that may derive from inconsistent approaches.
>> Ken
>> On Jul 18, 2007, at 6:50 AM, Mitch Kokar wrote:
>>> 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?
>>>
>>> ==Mitch
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> -----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
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 
>> -- -----
>> Ken Laskey
>> MITRE Corporation, M/S H305      phone: 703-983-7934
>> 7151 Colshire Drive                         fax:       703-983-1379
>> McLean VA 22102-7508
>
>
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------ 
-----
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 12:09:09 GMT

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