W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-webont-wg@w3.org > July 2003

Re: Proposed (parital) response to Ken Laskey and questions for WG

From: Jeff Heflin <heflin@cse.lehigh.edu>
Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2003 10:17:01 -0400
Message-ID: <3F155E5D.E0F62775@cse.lehigh.edu>
To: ewallace@cme.nist.gov
CC: www-webont-wg@w3.org

Evan,

Good suggestion. I think I will add something about that to O2.

Jeff

ewallace@cme.nist.gov wrote:
> 
> Jeff Heflin wrote as a proposed response to Ken Laskey:
> >> <original section="2.2" paragraph="3">
> >> An example of such knowledge would be that a "Late Georgian chest of
> >> drawers" is typically made of mahogany. This knowledge is crucial for real
> >> semantic queries, e.g. a user query for "antique mahogany storage
> >> furniture" could match with images of Late Georgian chests of drawers, even
> >> if nothing is said about wood type in the image annotation.
> >> </original>
> >>
> >> <comment>
> >> OWL supports equivalence relationships but not probablistic relationships
> >> such as "typically made of mahogany".  The concept "typically"would likely
> >> be application-specific reasoning which might be supported by a value
> >> mapping ontology, but this logic goes beyond OWL capabilities.  Suggest
> >> adding to the end of the paragraph:
> >>
> >> While OWL in its present form does not intrinsically support such
> >> probablistic or conditional associations useful in real semantic queries,
> >> application-specific semantics could be encoded in OWL to support such
> >> functionality.
> >> </comment>
> >
> >Actually, the use case was talking about defeasible inheritance
> >reasoning, not probability. Although probability can be clearly of use
> >in some use cases, the working group did not consider it an important
> >requirement, although support for probabilistic information is implied
> >by Requirement R12. Attaching Information to Statements. Therefore, I
> >decline the change.
> 
> I had similar troubles with this use case, but found your comment about
> defeasible inheritance reasoning invaluable in tracking down how default
> theory could be used in a language anything like OWL.  Perhaps it would be
> more responsive to his comment to identify this kind of reasoning right in
> a relevant part of requirements document (say in 02. Default property
> values).  Pointing out the default propery objective would be useful in any
> case since it discusses issues that led to OWL not supporting the feature.
> 
> -Evan
Received on Wednesday, 16 July 2003 10:17:11 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:01 GMT