W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > semantic-web@w3.org > August 2011

Re: fact checking for semantic reasoners

From: Paola Di Maio <paola.dimaio@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2011 13:31:23 +0100
Message-ID: <CAMXe=Sp1c5jeJBnCFo_DhGdP_6KZbLsLAJwEZTt8Zh_eSWfzsA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Enrico Franconi <franconi@inf.unibz.it>
Cc: semantic-web at W3C <semantic-web@w3c.org>
Enrico

Thanks for sharing your thoughts

I guess that your 'fact checking routines' are what normally are called
> ontologies.
>

Nope. An ontology is not a routine, to my knowledge (or at least, thats the
first time I hear this definition, can you please point me otherwise),
however it can referenced by a routine.


> The checking part would the consistency check of the available data with
> the ontologies themselves.
>

sure, so the consistency checking in ontologies - back to my question I
guess - are they done internally (internal consistency) or using
other resources on the web ? I suppose its easy to validate a fact
(as you note) based on an internal schema, its when this schema is compared
to different schemas that the consistency vacillates.
that's what I asked, let me rephrase

are the consistency checks in ontologies validated by supported evidence, or
how?

I suppose I am thinking of  the situation where there reasoning spans
many ontologies with  conflicting axioms



> Not to mention that it is impossible to check the consistency of all the
> available data in the semantic web with the ontologies.
>

it's called due diligence, we need to fact check everything all the time,
and we do it 'manually'.

 would be nice to have a service as such

you may heard that there is a concern that 'there is a lot of rubblish on
the internet', something hopefully can be done to increase the confidence in
web based information.

 'its impossible' is not how we got this far (on the web, same a in space)

...rather 'can do, must work out how to'

 prolly means I am not expecting a collaboration on this project with you or
your research group for the moment ... :-)   oh well, hopefully some other
time .....


cheers

P

> --e.
>
> On 29 Aug 2011, at 13:43, Paola Di Maio wrote:
>
> Its been a while since I studied artificial intelligence, but
> I remember writing fact checking routines implemented with rules at the
> time
> were pretty basic stuff
>
> The way I did it at the time was to model the fact checking routines
> that humans carry out (some professions have specific rules/protocols for
> fact checking, such as the legal or the forensics professions, other just
> follow their common sense)
> and all have their limitations, of course
>
>
> I am sure the concept can be refined ad libitum
>
> will send you a link to the paper, and would welcome input/feedback
>
>
> P
>
>
>
> On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 12:17 PM, Enrico Franconi <franconi@inf.unibz.it>wrote:
>
>>
>> On 29 Aug 2011, at 11:44, Paola Di Maio wrote:
>>
>> > ha ha, no- the reasoner (or the ontology) would need to check its facts
>> via a simple routine  have a built before it spews its outcome
>>
>> This simple routine being?
>> --e.
>
>
>
>
Received on Monday, 29 August 2011 12:31:50 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 07:42:29 UTC