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: Kathryn Blackmond Laskey <klaskey@gmu.edu>
Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2007 23:32:11 -0400
To: Umberto Straccia <umberto.straccia@isti.cnr.it>, public-xg-urw3@w3.org
Message-id: <p06110427c2c72d3f7ac8@[]>

>>.... you can extend the language and the inference mechanism or 
>>express and process the uncertainty within the standard language.
>>tall(John) : 0.7
>>tall(John, 0.7)
>>(... in both cases, without saying what 0.7 represents)

Independent of which way we go on tall(John) : 0.7 or tall(John,0.7), 
it will not be enough just to annotate sentences with a number 
expressing some degree of certainty or plausibility or membership or 
whatever.  To do probabilistic reasoning, we need to be able to make 
conditional independence statements, and to express conditional 
probabilities. To do probability tractably depends on representations 
composed out of local modules, and these local modules are 
parameterized by conditional probabilities, not absolute 

Received on Saturday, 21 July 2007 03:32:17 UTC

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