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

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

From: Ken Laskey <klaskey@mitre.org>
Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2007 11:32:36 -0400
Message-Id: <6ccd398a8e87c7f359a93fd7e83dd69a@mitre.org>
Cc: public-xg-urw3@w3.org
To: Peter.Vojtas@mff.cuni.cz

Very good!

For those of us who will not be there, please have someone send a quick  
email to the list and tell us something of your discussions.

Ken

On Jul 19, 2007, at 10:48 AM, Peter Vojtas wrote:

>
> 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 ...
>
>
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------ 
-----
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 15:32:28 GMT

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