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: Ken Laskey <klaskey@mitre.org>
Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2007 20:30:12 -0400
Message-Id: <ca9844b15c4d6f63fd2d5bb2f521bf57@mitre.org>
Cc: "Giorgos Stoilos" <gstoil@image.ece.ntua.gr>, <Peter.Vojtas@mff.cuni.cz>, <public-xg-urw3@w3.org>
To: "Mike Pool" <mpool@convera.com>

see inline  -Ken

On Jul 18, 2007, at 2:28 PM, Mike Pool wrote:

> Ken,
> Are you talking about extensions to the ontology that we're using
> internally for use case annotation, i.e.,
> http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/urw3/wiki/UncertaintyOntology? 
> action=At
> tachFile&do=get&target=Uncertainty.owl?
> If so, I think we should all be given a deadline to approve this as the
> "final rough draft" version before we impose such a high threshold on
> adding extensions.
Unless I misread the emails, I thought there were suggestions to start  
adding properties to our internal use case ontology.  I'd like to keep  
this minimal and was suggesting we impose a reality check before having  
theoretical description creep.

> Giorgos, I'm a bit puzzled by your response to the proposed extension,
> but possibly because I misunderstand what is being proposed or the
> intended usage of the ontology.  We weren't suggesting that the  
> ontology
> we're using for use case annotation be proposed as an OWL extension for
> w3c approval and universal usage, were we?   If not, I don't think we
> need to worry too much about whether or not extant tool sets can  
> process
> it or whether it will meet with universal approbation, do we?
> (That aside, in the end, I think it's counterproductive for us to
> constrain ourselves with an eye to what will fit easily within the
> current OWL standards.  We should at least allow ourselves the room to
> draw the conclusion that it's entirely inadequate if that's what the
> evidence and analysis suggests.)
Let's first figure out what we believe needs to be represented.  If  
showing this in the context of OWL or some other representation will  
make it easier to explain to others, then let's use the best  
description we can.  If there are nonstandard "extensions" as part of  
our explanation, that is fine.  Remember, we are not chartered to come  
up with final syntax and a successor effort can clean up the details if  
we can make it clear what is needed.

> Best regards,
> Mike
> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-xg-urw3-request@w3.org
> [mailto:public-xg-urw3-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Giorgos Stoilos
> Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2007 1:30 PM
> To: 'Ken Laskey'; Peter.Vojtas@mff.cuni.cz
> Cc: public-xg-urw3@w3.org
> Subject: RE: [URW3 public] OWL extensions [was Re: [URW3] ... three
> questions based on the last telecon]
> 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
Ken Laskey
MITRE Corporation, M/S H305      phone: 703-983-7934
7151 Colshire Drive                         fax:       703-983-1379
McLean VA 22102-7508
Received on Thursday, 19 July 2007 00:30:33 UTC

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