W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org > May 2007

Re: Evidence for backing statements

From: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>
Date: Fri, 18 May 2007 21:55:58 +0200
Message-ID: <464E04CE.6080404@danbri.org>
To: Matt Williams <matthew.williams@cancer.org.uk>
Cc: public-semweb-lifesci hcls <public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org>

Matt Williams wrote:
> I've been lurking & reading the discussion with interest.
> It might be worth pointing out that there is an ongoing attempt to 
> classify/ represent evidential links/ weight/ etc. started in the legal 
> domain by people such as Wigmore and continued by people such as David 
> Schum & William Twining. There's currently a Leverhulme-sponsored 
> research programme on "Evidence Science", centered at UCL, London.
> Such efforts don't seem to easily map to rdf (they're often based on 
> Bayesian models), but might provide some inspiration, although some of 
> the legal niceties may be unnecessary.

Interesting! There's also another related group here in W3Cland - an 
incubator on Uncertainty Reasoning for the Web, see
http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/urw3/ ...though things are only just 
starting up. The only mailing list traffic so far is about scheduling 
the first telecon.
The charter has some notes on what they're doing:
http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/urw3/charter ...and Bayes gets a few 
mentions there.

My inclination with RDF and evidence/probability, ... is that without 
reinventing the RDF graph model, it is likely easier to attach 
probability and other annotations to collections of statements, rather 
than to individual triples. This can be done for example by making 
assertions about an RDF/XML document, ... and is somehow related to the 
ability in SPARQL to associate a graph with a URI. For example see 


Received on Friday, 18 May 2007 19:56:19 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:20:26 UTC