RE: Evidence for backing statements/Wiki page for HCLS Uncertainty Use Cases

Hi,

 

I participated on the URW3 Telcon today and volunteered to collect the HCLS
uncertainty use cases.

 

Have set up a wiki page for HCLS Uncertatinty use cases is available at:

 

http://esw.w3.org/topic/HCLS/UncertaintyUseCases

 

Please add more use cases and annotate existing ones with your suggestions and
feedback.

An interesting exercise being proposed in URW3 is to create an "Uncertainty
Ontology"

and my suggestion was that HCLS use cases could provide the motivations and
driving force.

 

This could be an interesting collaboration opportunity across the two groups.

 

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-semweb-lifesci-request@w3.org
[mailto:public-semweb-lifesci-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Eric Neumann
Sent: Friday, May 18, 2007 7:40 PM
To: Chris Mungall; Dan Brickley
Cc: Matt Williams; public-semweb-lifesci hcls
Subject: RE: Evidence for backing statements

 

 

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






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.