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

Example is nice, but I would stress to use web examples, even if it is in an article on the web, somebody says ...XY...is tall, but he/she does not claim tall:0.7, we have to tend to more realistic web-examples (e.g. in our use cases). I agree it depends on the society, circumstances,.... are we going to model also these? Peter


Please note my changed address Peter.Vojtas@mff.cuni.cz



----- Original Message -----
From: Ken Laskey [mailto:klaskey@mitre.org]
To: Peter.Vojtas@mff.cuni.cz
Cc: Kathryn Blackmond Laskey [mailto:klaskey@gmu.edu], public-xg-urw3@w3.org, Umberto Straccia [mailto:umberto.straccia@isti.cnr.it]
Subject: Re: [URW3 public] OWL extensions [was Re: [URW3] ...  three questions   based on the last telecon]


> Peter,
> 
> We would always like to have "exact" information, but any measurement  
> has a degree of inexactness/uncertainty based purely on the preciseness  
> of the measuring instrument.  At a crime scene, a suspect may be  
> described as tall but the accuracy depends on what the observer  
> considers tall, the vantage point from which the observer saw the  
> suspect, and whether the suspect was wearing shoes with heels.  Also,  
> was the suspect tall in the context of a society where the average  
> height is 162 cm or 175 cm?  Making use of the fact that the suspect  
> was "tall" requires many assumptions, most of which are implied in  
> conversation but never explicitly stated.
> 
> What does this tell us about what needs to be represented in terms of  
> uncertainty?
> 
> Ken
> 
> On Jul 24, 2007, at 9:29 AM, Peter Vojtáš wrote:
> 
> >
> > I personaly would prefer to know the exact height of John and decide  
> > on my background and intention whether he is or not tall.
> >      So I am afraid that I do not understand where such an information  
> > can appear
> > Peter
> >
> >
> > Please note my changed address Peter.Vojtas@mff.cuni.cz
> >
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Kathryn Blackmond Laskey [mailto:klaskey@gmu.edu]
> > To: Umberto Straccia [mailto:umberto.straccia@isti.cnr.it],  
> > public-xg-urw3@w3.org
> > Subject: Re: [URW3 public] OWL extensions [was Re: [URW3] ...  three  
> > questions  based on the last telecon]
> >
> >
> >>
> >>
> >>>> .... 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)
> >>
> >> 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
> >> probabilities.
> >>
> >> K
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 
> -----
> Ken Laskey
> MITRE Corporation, M/S H305      phone: 703-983-7934
> 7151 Colshire Drive                         fax:       703-983-1379
> McLean VA 22102-7508
> 
>

Received on Wednesday, 25 July 2007 11:10:11 UTC