- From: Jeremy Wong <50263336@student.cityu.edu.hk>
- Date: Sun, 13 Mar 2005 20:38:02 +0800
- To: Yuzhong Qu <yzqu@seu.edu.cn>
- Cc: SWIG <semantic-web@w3.org>
>> > See the comment inline. >> > >> >> Consider the following statements... >> >> >> >> R1 P1 R2 >> >> R1 rdf:type C1 >> >> R2 rdf:type C2 >> >> >> >> P2 rdfs:subPropertyOf P1 >> >> P2 rdfs:domain C1 >> >> P2 rdfs:range C2 >> >> >> >> My engine thinks that >> >> >> >> R1 P2 R2 >> > >> > The imaginary engine is not good enough. >> >> Anything I can do to improve the imaginary engine? In fact, I may use >> this >> "inference" as an application in my project. Let me describe here... >> >> A part of the schema... >> >> <rdf:Property rdf:ID="connectSignalTo" xml:base="&e;"> >> <rdfs:domain rdf:resource="#SignalOutput"/> >> <rdfs:range rdf:resource="#SignalInput"/> >> </rdf:Property> >> >> before... >> >> <gom:Point rdf:nodeID="A0"> >> <rdf:type rdf:resource="&e;SignalOutput"/> >> </gom:Point> >> <gom:Point rdf:nodeID="A1"> >> <rdf:type rdf:resource="&e;SignalInput"/> >> </gom:Point> >> >> creating a connection... >> >> <rdf:Description rdf:nodeID="A0"> >> <gom:connectTo rdf:nodeID="A1"/> >> </rdf:Description> >> >> "think"... >> >> <rdf:Description rdf:nodeID="A0"> >> <e:connectSignalTo rdf:nodeID="A1"/> >> </rdf:Description> >> >> "Think" is the only solution I devise for the above problem. The >> imaginary >> proposes to the end user that the drawing connection, gom:connectTo, may >> be >> a signal connection, e:connectSignalTo. >> > > I can see the situation. > > General speaking, there doesn't exist any neat solution to this fuzzy > issue. > > Thinking: > > What is the sufficient condition to make the assertion P2(R1, R2) true? > even if under some precondition such as P1(R1, R2), subPropertyOf(P2, P1), > R1 and R2 satifying the domain and range constraints of P2. > Yes, I agree with you that there exists a problem of the determination of the sufficient condition. Whether the statement P2(R1,R2) is a true assertion, should it be determined by the end-user. In the situation I described above, the imagined statement P2(R1,R2) will be prompted to the end-user. The end-user may configure the engine to accept the imaged statement manually or automatically. In fact, it's only a proposed feature of my engine, implementation of the imaginary feature is not really done yet. > > Probability-based reasoning can be used to partially solve this problem, > Or > > Machine learning, Bayesian network, Neural Network, Or > > Soft Computing Technique > > [snip] > I also agree with you that there are many technologies for learning thoughts. My experience of using some of them was not really satisfactory :(. For example, one time I helped a friend to "attack" the XOR problem using Neural Network in MS Excel. I failed to find out the correct parameters to solve the problem. It seems that I need to spend more time to get familar with any neural network. The same adverse situation may be encountered by some other users. I think out the following formulae when I sit inside a bus today... Score = (a*x + b*y + c*z) * w where a, b, c are parameters to be configured. x is the percentage of rdfs:domain matched. y is the percentage of rdfs:range matched. z is the percentage of rdfs:subPropertyOf matched. w is either 1 or 0, it means that whether the imagined statement should be rejected by some other reasons. Can neural network apply to this kind of formulae? >> >> Jeremy >> >> >> > >> > Yuzhong Qu >> > >> >> Jeremy >> > > Yuzhong Qu > Jeremy
Received on Sunday, 13 March 2005 12:44:22 UTC