- From: Umberto Straccia <umberto.straccia@isti.cnr.it>
- Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2007 14:36:09 +0200
- To: public-xg-urw3@w3.org
On Jul 19, 2007, at 10:22 AM, Trevor Martin wrote: > This is precisely the choice faced by implementers of logic > programming + uncertainty languages .... you can extend the > language and the inference mechanism or express and process the > uncertainty within the standard language. > > tall(John) : 0.7 > > vs > > tall(John, 0.7) > > (... in both cases, without saying what 0.7 represents) > > The former approach gives you more control, reduces to "standard" > notation when the uncertainty is omitted and (I think) makes the > semantics clearer; > the latter involves no change to existing notation (hence is easier > to sell ) but gets messy when only some of the representation > requires the uncertainty and obscures the meaning of the annotation. > Not exactly, Trevor. What should be a minimal setting (you know that there are 200+ citations about Logic Programming, uncertainty/ vagueness ....) be ? What semantics? Even an expression of the form P(c1, ...cn): 0.7 is open to a pletora of semantic options ... What I say is is that > tall(John) : 0.7 should rather be represented like (guided by the uncertainty ontology) sentence s IS tall(John) AND s HasTruthDegree = 0.7 Anyway, that's just my opinion ...
Received on Thursday, 19 July 2007 12:31:21 UTC