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

we can meet in London at FuzzIEEE Re: [URW3 public] OWL extensions [was Re: [URW3] ... three questions based on the last telecon]

From: Peter Vojtas <Peter.Vojtas@mff.cuni.cz>
Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2007 16:48:09 +0200
Message-ID: <469F79A9.50001@mff.cuni.cz>
To: public-xg-urw3@w3.org

All URW3 discussion participants,

We can try to meet Tuesday morning before or after opening (that me 
http://kocour.ms.mff.cuni.cz/~vojtas/) and make an appointment for 
personal discussion (maybe Trevor can arrange a room?).

Next year is also IPMU in Malaga, there is already a tradition of having 
session FLSW on Fuzzy Logic in Semantic Web,  but now it would be more 
reasonable to organize our own and/or joint session? - deadline for 
special session proposal is in September - maybe/probably Malaga 
organizers will be in London too (of course our first personal meeting 
will be in Korea).

Greetings Peter

This bellow is a toy example and it depends on who said it and in what 
context - arranging a basketball team or medicine diagnosis or looking 
for a partner :-)

Umberto Straccia wrote:
> 
> 
> 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 14:48:23 GMT

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