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

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

From: Giorgos Stoilos <gstoil@image.ece.ntua.gr>
Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2007 20:30:05 +0300
Message-Id: <200707181730.l6IHU0m1022287@manolito.image.ece.ntua.gr>
To: "'Ken Laskey'" <klaskey@mitre.org>, <Peter.Vojtas@mff.cuni.cz>
Cc: <public-xg-urw3@w3.org>

Hi Ken,

This sounds reasonable enough. But let me also stress another issue.

A proposed extension should be as minimal as possible in order to enjoy
acceptance by the non-uncertainty community and persuade people that it
could be adopted in their tools with a minimal effort. So also replying to
Peter's mail, I do not agree with extensions like owl_ursw:usualy_oneOf,
owl_ursw:often_oneOf, owl_ursw:probably_subClassOf, which to me do not seem
minimal. 

-gstoil

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-xg-urw3-request@w3.org [mailto:public-xg-urw3-request@w3.org]
> On Behalf Of Ken Laskey
> Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2007 3:02 PM
> To: Peter.Vojtas@mff.cuni.cz
> Cc: public-xg-urw3@w3.org
> Subject: [URW3 public] OWL extensions [was Re: [URW3] ... three questions
> based on the last telecon]
> 
> 
> 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 17:31:37 GMT

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