- From: Ken Laskey <klaskey@mitre.org>
- Date: Thu, 5 Nov 2009 07:26:04 -0500
- To: Paulo CG Costa <pcosta@gmu.edu>, <patrick.paulson@pnl.gov>
- CC: <public-xg-urw3@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <02439CAE-A22D-464C-9C99-B816FBB0090E@mitre.org>
Paulo and Patrick, I believe the URW3 public mailing list has now been appropriately updated and is ready for use. During the discussion period, the notes captured by Mike Pool state Paulo Costa and Patrick Paulson agreed to take responsibility for driving the discussion forward. At the end of 30 days we want to have a clear articulation of the goals moving forward and the next steps. Now with a working mailing list and a chance for each of us to settle back in after the conference, I believe it is time to start the work on our goals. The full notes from the workshop discussion are included below. I look forward to the continuing discussion. Ken <URSW5-notes> The URSW workshop series - What's next for the Uncertainty Representation and Reasoning for the SW community? -Ken went through his notes from an Oct. 2008 presentation History: -first workshop in 2005 -URSW 2006 generated a use case challenge: -identity WWW situations requiring uncertainty and identify methodologies for addressing them URSW3-XG working group began March '07 Ken discussed/summarized: -products: -an uncertainty ontology to characterize use cases -14 use cases illustrating conditions in which uncertainty reasoning would be useful -recommendations -open issues: -Current status -Possible venues to continue work: -See Claudia's Novemer 7, 2008 email The Future? (see my slides) -Uncertainty Reasoning formalisms as w3c standards -represent the output of uncertainty reasoning, e.g., represent the uncertainty value but not necessarily standardize how to do reasoning for specific content. Discussion How to proceed? Bart G.: Should we get a structure for representing mappings, e.g., embedded in FOL? - Bart w. Ryerson University, Toronto -Kathy: That falls under the question of whether existing standards are sufficient? -Ken L.: the more we're out of sync with things that were done in the past, the better case we can make -Kathy: How Patrick Paulson, pacific nw lab -I did work with Open providence people and their approach was to leave it general enough to be used by everybody, try to avoid XML Schema vs. RDF wars, keep things at an entity-representation point of view? -Kathy: that's suggestive of the Common Logic principle, requirements/content is at an abstract level and can be implemented in different language -Patrick: For the Semantic web we have specific problems. trevor martin: How far did Umberto get with tapping the EU? -Kathy: we don't know/ Kathy: a) how valuable is URSW, do we want a URSW 6? What is the purpose b) Do we want to go beyond URSW and think about an XG for standardization? Ken: -Note that we needn't follow a W3C XG format to get work done between meetings. Kathy: Yes, XG's are for experimental work, and we could use different format. An advantage is that it gives you some infrastructure, and some legitimacy as a W3C and a report comes out of it. Ken: W3C outputs has some visibility and we had some cross working Dave Reynolds: An achievable near terms goal, represent the results of uncertainty reasoning. Perhaps we could create a W3C note. Kathy: Another near term goal: annotating data for use in Naive Bayes novel, i.e., the inputs and outputs of reasoners. Ken: If we want a standard, there's nothing like showing a real problem and why your standard works very well. Bart: Ontology matching workshop has a contest. Do we need a competition/challenge Kathy: yes, a challenge might be a good idea for, for example, ISWC 2010. Perhaps we could use linked data sets. Mike: Perhaps we could get the old EELD data Patrick:Challenge could be to combine uncertainty. Kathy: defining challenge problem would be a hard problem in its own right Kathy: How many think it would be a good idea to have another XG, continuity ? 7 said yes no one said no to the question. challenge problem: 9, we shouldn't: 2 AC, Microsoft: There's been a lot of work in the uncertainty community. How much cross work has there been? Kathy: Emphasis here, as opposed to UAI, is on semantic web, annotations, new DL, et. AC: might a challenge problem bring in more people for the UR community? Kathy: SW group combines rep. and reasoning. UAI became an org. on its own right. In some respects that has happened to us, some of us are now on main prog. committee. Ken: Why did Thomas and Claudia say no to challenge problem? Claudia: We haven't made enough progress. We need to have more concrete results and then make a challenge. Ken: Might we put together a charter for this group moving forward? and then come up with a challenge in 6 months? Patrick: The challenge problem needn't be accompanied with a paper, just need to generate results. But there's a chicken and egg problem, we need a representation to do it and that will cause questions, etc. Kathy: One possibility would be to drive towards a W3C note. We could put that together for an XG. Lay out what needs to be standard. Ken:We probably can't use 'W3C note' now -- deprecated term -- but, it would have to be an XG report which has equivalent standing. Kathy: We'd like there to be a goal and some vehicle for formalizing it Dave R.: Yes, it may have to be a user submission. Ken:the important point is that we need a crisp description of what our goals are: Kathy: We seem to be moving towards a consolidation of what we want to communicate: (1) We pick an idea, and annotate it. We specify what needs to be represented and conveyed. (2) We specify an evaluation and annotate it. Ken:Perhaps we could simply put together a mailing list, with a goal of putting together the goals of this group moving forward. Bart:One suggestion might be to go to the Ontolog forum. Kathy:Let's not open that up on the Ontolog forum. But let's nail down what we're doing and invite people to participate. Bart:yes, let's just create a track on Ontolog. Kathy:Yes, that's less stuck on W3C, we could also use a GMU mailing list or Google Groups. Bart:Open Ontology Repository is a way for people to get together and specify what they need. Perhaps that's where we could talk about what is needed. Kathy:There's an ISWC OOR meeting here tomorrow. Mike: The EELD challenge problem might be a good place to start for a challenge problem. (There was then some discussion of whether or not the data had been annotated with uncertainties.) Ken:Continue the discuss in 30 days in an email group. Do we have one or more volunteers to drive the conversation Paulo Costa and Patrick Paulson agreed to take responsibility for driving the discussion forward. At the end of 30 days we want to have a clear articulation of the goals moving forward and the next steps. We should get the participant list nailed down within the next week, i.e., circulate the existence of the group to a broad group of potential participants. </URSW5-notes> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ken Laskey MITRE Corporation, M/S H305 phone: 703-983-7934 7515 Colshire Drive fax: 703-983-1379 McLean VA 22102-7508
Received on Thursday, 5 November 2009 12:26:13 UTC