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: Thu, 19 Jul 2007 23:47:23 +0300
Message-Id: <200707192047.l6JKlEwm011515@manolito.image.ece.ntua.gr>
To: "'Umberto Straccia'" <umberto.straccia@isti.cnr.it>, <public-xg-urw3@w3.org>

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-xg-urw3-request@w3.org [mailto:public-xg-urw3-request@w3.org]
> On Behalf Of Umberto Straccia
> Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2007 3:20 PM
> To: public-xg-urw3@w3.org
> Subject: Re: [URW3 public] OWL extensions [was Re: [URW3] ... three
> questions based on the last telecon]
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: public-xg-urw3-request@w3.org [mailto:public-xg-urw3-
> >> request@w3.org]
> >> On Behalf Of Umberto Straccia
> >> Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2007 8:55 PM
> >> To: public-xg-urw3@w3.org
> >> Subject: Re: [URW3 public] OWL extensions [was Re: [URW3] ... three
> >> questions based on the last telecon]
> >>
> >>
> >> I am more in favor of having no OWL/RDFS language extension at all,
> >> but encoding the data, according to a core uncertainty ontology,
> >> which we may develop as outcome (see my previous email.... or just
> >> below). To my opinion, this is by far much more extensible/flexible
> >> than any OWL/RDFS language extension and  certainly faster and easier
> >> to be accepted by any non-uncertainty community.
> >>
> >
> > My point was *not* that your proposal is not feasible. To the
> > contrary it is
> > very nice. My point was that at the end of the day it will turn our
> > to be
> > almost (and maybe exactly) the same thing to agree upon using an
> > OWL concept
> > like LeftShoulderFunction for left shoulder functions,
> Yes, indeed.
> > which crisp tools
> > will have to learn to toss away
> No, that's the point. Crisp tools simply do nothing with them. No
> special treatment and current parser still will work. These are just
> crisp OWL concepts and role symbols.

Yes I agree that this is a major advantage. But still there are many issues
to be resolved:

1) Is it possible to capture all ingredients of uncertainty (lets ground on
fuzziness): Can you use the above method to capture the following ontology:
C(a)=0.9, D(a)=0.8, R(a,b)=0.6? (Oh, I would be grateful if you could use a
more "standardized" syntax like RDF/XML, OWL abstract syntax or even DL

2) Is it possible to create such a CORE ontology for any type of
uncertainty? These capital letters you used below for the word "CORE", just
reminded me of the multimedia analogy. So (as you know) in the semantic
multimedia realm people are using such an approach to create a CORE
multimedia ontology for semantic annotation and since 1999 about a dozen of
proposals have been created, of course without any solution yet. Even more
some people are taking this approach even further and are using OWL
AnnotationProperties for their job (like CIDOC). So we can also use comments
properties <rdfs:label>Young;LeftShoulder;20;30</rdfs:label>.

3) If such ontology is possible will it be usable in practice? 

4) Logically speaking such an approach is not...logical. For example RIF WG
has created a rules ontology (in OWL) but still this ontology is not used to
write rules per se.

So everything has to be investigated further. At this point the extensions
we have proposed for fuzzy-OWL have worked fine so unless convinced
otherwise (by a complete and up and running approach) I will be in favour of
(lightweight) extensions. 


> > while fuzzy tools to correctly interpret
> >
> Exactly, that's has to be done anyway ...
> Anyway, I suggest to use standard OWL-DL to encode imperfect
> knowledge. We may later on suggest weather it is better to extend OWL-
> DL (RDFS/RIF/RuleML) or just to propose a CORE ontology about
> representing imperfect knowledge.
Received on Thursday, 19 July 2007 20:47:37 UTC

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