# RE: [URW3 public] OWL extensions [was Re: [URW3] ... three questions based on the last telecon]

From: Giorgos Stoilos <gstoil@image.ece.ntua.gr>
Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2007 09:01:04 +0300
Message-Id: <200707200600.l6K60tVK001796@manolito.image.ece.ntua.gr>
To: "'Umberto Straccia'" <umberto.straccia@isti.cnr.it>, <public-xg-urw3@w3.org>

(Taking that Trevor is busy with Fuzz-IEEE allow me to post here)
See inline.

> -----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 3:36 PM
> To: public-xg-urw3@w3.org
> Subject: Re: [URW3 public] OWL extensions [was Re: [URW3] ... three
> questions based on the last telecon]
>
>
>
> 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/

I don't fully understand your point here.

> vagueness ....) be ? What semantics?
>
> Even an expression of the form
>
> P(c1, ...cn): 0.7
>
> is open to a pletora of semantic options ...

This is another thing. I think the point was that tall(John, 0.7) is
interpreted as <John^I,0.7^D>\in Tall^I, where I maps individuals to object
and D datavalues to concrete object. In other words Tall is a relation which
contains the pair <John^I,0.7^D>. On the other hand Tall(John):0.7 should be
interpreted in a non-classical way, whatever this way is.

-gstoil

>
> 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 Friday, 20 July 2007 06:02:21 UTC

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