- From: Kashyap, Vipul <VKASHYAP1@PARTNERS.ORG>
- Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2007 11:43:40 -0400
- To: <public-xg-urw3@w3.org>
- Cc: <public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <DBA3C02EAD0DC14BBB667C345EE2D124428949@PHSXMB20.partners.org>
I think there is a very relevant discussion under way in HCLSIG which has ramifications for our attempts to build an Uncertainty Ontology. The wiki URL is included below, just in case someone may find it useful. http://esw.w3.org/topic/HCLS/Evidence Cheers, ----Vipul ======================================= Vipul Kashyap, Ph.D. Senior Medical Informatician Clinical Informatics R&D, Partners HealthCare System Phone: (781)416-9254 Cell: (617)943-7120 http://www.partners.org/cird/AboutUs.asp?cBox=Staff&stAb=vik To keep up you need the right answers; to get ahead you need the right questions ---John Browning and Spencer Reiss, Wired 6.04.95 ________________________________ From: public-xg-urw3-request@w3.org [mailto:public-xg-urw3-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Mitch Kokar Sent: Monday, June 18, 2007 11:39 AM To: public-xg-urw3@w3.org Subject: RE: Model and sources of uncertainty All, So first of all I'd like to say that all I tried to do is read a couple of papers (two of them are listed on the web site) that discuss various types of uncertainty and then make an attempt at reconciling multiple views of the terms used in the various approaches into a single ontology. In other words, the notions I put in the ontology are not my inventions - they are defined in various papers. During this weekend I tried to understand the feedback I received from the group and then tried to see whether the current ontology is sufficient or it needs to be extended. I came to the conlcusion that we might need to extend it a bit. I have not made the changes in the graphics, as yet, since I didn't want to put too much effort into the changes before first coming to some agreements. However, in order to make the discussion more focused, I added some textual descriptions of the terms used in the ontology (on the Wiki). So here are my replies to the issues raised by the group, mainly by Paulo and Vipul. I believe gstoil is in agreement with me. 1. Unreliability of the source: In the current Uncertainty Reasoning Ontology, let's call it URO for now, this would be modeled by representing the source as an instance of World. Thus there would be a sentence about the source A "Source A is 33% reliable." Then the notion of "33% reliable" would have to be specified using one of the Uncertainty Types. 2. Dissonance: I added one more type to UncertaintyTypes - Inconsistency. I believe this would capture dissonance, but if not, we could then think a bit more about this issue. I mean here logical inconsistency, i.e., when there is no model for a sentence. I don't mean existence of evidence for and against a specific hypotheses (which is just fine within the probability theory). 3. Incompleteness: I would also say that incompleteness is not a type of vagueness. But it might be interpreted as a kind of ambiguity due to the lack of sufficient information for resolving the question of whether a specific world is a model of the sentence or not. But then we could also add another class (Incompleteness) to the types of uncertainty. 4. Inconclusiveness: I believe I understand what it is, but I don't quite see how this is a type of uncertainty. Perhaps I am missing something here? But it looks to me more like redundancy, i.e., a sentence does not add to the existing knowledge since it's already in what can be inferred from the knowledge we already have. Please correct me if I am wrong on this. 5. Interpretation: I believe this is about sensors through which we perceive the world. Similary as in point 1 above, this is a sentence about an instance of World (sensor) whose accuracy would have to be specified in terms of this ontology using one of the probability types. Vipul's issues: Statement vs. belief: Perhaps we could incorporate beliefs in the ontology, but this would seem to say that someone makes statements that he/does not believe in. It seems to me that in that case the distinction would be between the agent who believes in the statment and someone else who just refers to that agent's beliefs. We could possibly subclassify Statement for this purpose. Vipul - could you say in OWL what changes you are proposing? I agree that UncertaintyModel could be termed somehow differently. We could possibly add some synonims to the ontology. It seems that the rest Vipul's statements are comments or clarifications. ==Mitch ________________________________ From: public-xg-urw3-request@w3.org [mailto:public-xg-urw3-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Paulo CG Costa Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2007 5:59 AM To: public-xg-urw3@w3.org Subject: Model and sources of uncertainty Dear Mitch, The model on types of uncertainty lists only three of them: 1 - Vagueness 2 - Randomness 3 - Ambiguity How about: - unreability: knowledge from a source that is not 100% trustfull, - dissonance: we see the same piece of information, but each have a distinct interpretation, - incompleteness: which is not vagueness, since you can have a clear view of just part of the information, - inconclusiveness: we have clear, deterministic, non ambiguous information, which is also complete, we both agree upon it, and the source is reliable, but it is not enough to come up with any conclusive assertion. Also, regarding the sources of uncertainty, how about interpretation? Is it within the epistemic label? I know that our lack of complete knowledge of the things that happen in the world (even if they are deterministic) is the cause of (epistemic) uncertainty. However, it is not so clear to me that two people with complete knowledge about a deterministic phenomena, but with distinct interpretations of what they see are an epistemic source of uncertainty. The uncertainty doesn't come from an aleatory source and is not caused by incomplete knowledge, but it is an artifact of how those human sensors perceive the phenomena. Thanks, Paulo _______________________________ Dr. Paulo Cesar G. da Costa Assistant Professor - C4I Center George Mason University Fairfax, VA - USA http://mason.gmu.edu/~pcosta <http://mason.gmu.edu/~pcosta> pcosta@gmu.edu <mailto:pcosta@gmu.edu> The information transmitted in this electronic communication is intended only for the person or entity to whom it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of or taking of any action in reliance upon this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this information in error, please contact the Compliance HelpLine at 800-856-1983 and properly dispose of this information.
Received on Monday, 18 June 2007 15:43:58 UTC