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

Re: Evidence for backing statements

From: Adrian Walker <adriandwalker@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 19 May 2007 15:55:23 -0400
Message-ID: <1e89d6a40705191255t388b0a5oe89f8563f7885952@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Eric Neumann" <eneumann@teranode.com>
Cc: "public-semweb-lifesci hcls" <public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org>
Eric --

You wrote...    I see several potential categories of uncertainty, some
around the current reification discussions; here's a starter list that is by
no means exhaustive: ........ 4. ???

Here's my 2 cents worth for item 4.

I'd say that an application or a reasoner that uses RDF or other data can
supply natural language phrases to indicate the real world meaning and
(un)certainty of what it has found.  Such as --

       "Arif Durrani could have met with the following person(s) near LAX
from 200610060900 to 200610061945 :  Mohammed Al-Bisri , Samir Hakim"

       "as far as is known at 200705119 1529 the contributors to the
discussion are Matt, Adrian, Dan, Chris, Eric" ,

    "based on past experience, it is likely that at least one further W3C
member will add to the discussion"

    "according to the popular literature, red wine is good for you, but the
refereed literature mostly regards this as unproven"

and so on.

It just so happens that this kind of thing works rather well in the online
system [1].  In particular, English explanations from the system allow one
to drill down into the support for a hedged result, in English, to see in
detail if one agrees with the hedging.

The key requirement is to have a completely automated round trip linkage
between English and some form of executable logic.  In general this is
regarded as an "AI-complete" problem, but there are automated work-arounds
that are useful in practice, such as in [1].

Some examples you can view, run and change:

   www.reengineeringllc.com/demo_agents/ArmsDealerMeeting1.agent

   www.reengineeringllc.com/demo_agents/BlackScholes1.agent

   www.reengineeringllc.com/demo_agents/MedMine2.agent

    www.reengineeringllc.com/demo_agents/Pc-Os-Ontology1.agent

    www.reengineeringllc.com/demo_agents/RDFQueryLangComparison1.agent

    www.reengineeringllc.com/demo_agents/SemanticResolution2.agent


www.reengineeringllc.com/demo_agents/Oil-IndustrySupplyChain1Sqlmysql.agent

Hope this helps.

                                                Cheers,    - Adrian

[1] Internet Business Logic
A Wiki for Executable Open Vocabulary English
Online at www.reengineeringllc.com    Shared use is free

Adrian Walker
Reengineering


On 5/18/07, Eric Neumann <eneumann@teranode.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> This would be a good time to begin collecting use-cases from HCLS for the
> URW (Uncertainty Reasoning for the Web,
> http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/urw3/) incubator group involving
> uncertainty, beliefs and probabilities...
>
> I see several potential categories of uncertainty, some around the current
> reification discussions; here's a starter list that is by no means
> exhaustive:
>
> 1. Annotations and belief statements: these may always be uncertain
> (though over time their uncertainty may reduce), yet they may never have an
> globally agreed probability associated with them. e.g.,  It would depend
> on how much a particular consumer values a particular annotation coming form
> a particular research group-- let each consumer determine there own
> certainty weighting...
>
> 2. A data set from clinical findings or microarrays that is analytically
> processed using a statistical package, and the resulting relations may have
> confidence intervals and p-values associated with them (student pair test,
> Z-scores, non-parametric ests, F-statsitic cluster scores, etc).
>
> 3. OWL-based classifications that are proposed but not fully-tested or
> validated yet, e.g., whether patient Z's disease symptom W are indicative
> of a new disease class or not. This will be closely aligned with evolving
> ontologies.
>
> 4. ???
>
> Again, I'll mention my personal view that within HCLS, most RDF statements
> (possibly all) are really beliefs that may eventually be proven false. Hence
> we would need to explicitly state that such RDF statements follow KD45 modal
> logic constraints (one can say something that may be later proven false, but
> for now the author honestly does not know this), rather than S5 (only
> truthful statements can be made).
>
> In other words, am I correct to assume that within HCLS, all RDF
> statements we are considering are not facts, but assertions, that may in the
> future be proven false, but never proven true?
>
>
> Eric
>
Received on Sunday, 20 May 2007 04:35:20 UTC

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