- From: Peter Vojtas <Peter.Vojtas@mff.cuni.cz>
- Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2007 10:23:49 +0200
- To: Ken Laskey <klaskey@mitre.org>
- CC: public-xg-urw3@w3.org, mpool@convera.com
Dear colleaguess (sent to public list and separately to KL and MP), as I have pointed in the ontology page in Top Level comments by P. Vojtas is there a mistake?, see http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/urw3/wiki/is_there_a_mistake%3F by W3C standards, basic information unit is a triple (subject, predicate, object) which can be true or false in a structure (to avoid discussion whether it is a sentence or proposition, w3c uses statement). see e.g. http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-primer/ for following example http://www.example.org/index.html has a creation-date whose value is August 16, 1999 here we can use reification for another writing asigning an identifier to the statement ex:triple1 rdf:type rdf:Statement ex:triple1 rdf:subject http://www.example.org/index.html ex:triple1 rdf:predicate http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/creator ex:triple1 rdf:object http://www.example.org/staffid/85740 ex:triple1 ex:creator http://www.example.org/staffid/85741 THIS CONSTRUCTION IS VERY USEFULL IN OUR CASE especialy in our ontology discussion the triple urw3:Sentence urw3:hasUncertainty urw3:Uncertainty should be by my opinion rewritten as urw3:triple2 rdf:type rdf:Statement urw3:triple2 rdf:subject urw3:Sentence urw3:triple2 rdf:predicate urw3:hasUncertainty urw3:triple2 rdf:object urw3:Uncertainty urw3:triple2 ex:creator urw3:Mitch and instance ( consider also an "instance" ex:triple1 urw3:hasUncertainty urw3:0.9) as, e.g. urw3:triple3 rdf:type rdf:Statement urw3:triple3 rdf:subject ex:triple1 urw3:triple3 rdf:predicate urw3:hasUncertainty urw3:triple3 rdf:object urw3:0.9 urw3:triple3 ex:creator urw3:Peter urw3:triple3 urw3:tool urw3:Bayes The example with the german sentence (Mathias can help) is very usefull (words morgen and Morgen are problematic) because it shows what can happen. MP assigns an uncertainty to his own translation by expression "if I’ve translated correctly". Nevertheless, by my opinion "Es regnet morgen" is a problematic sentence because "Es regnet" is about present and "morgen" with lower case m in the begining means tomorrow, it is an adverb. So a problem accurs, what to do with a gramaticaly wrong sentence (note that the word sentence I use here in the linguistical sense, which in the W3c terminology can by defined appropriately by corresponding triples, by defining predicates like subject, verb, object, mode (manner), place and time). I would say either "Es regnet heute morgen" or "Es wird morgen regnen". Sorry for such a long mail, concluding I would like to say, please let us use w3c terminology (arguing for necessity of an extensions of standards we need be compatible with current standards). Next, the above example shows we need to define our own prefix and rdf vocabulary for uncertainty ontology. Greetings Peter > *From:* Mike Pool > *Sent:* Friday, July 13, 2007 3:25 PM > *To:* public-xg-urw3-request@w3.org > *Subject:* three questions based on the last telecon. > > Hi, all: > > We’ve been having some great discussions during the meetings and I’d > like to pick up a few threads that came up in the last meeting. I > reread these as I was trying to write up the minutes: > > 1) > Peter suggested that we use w3c standards as our guide for the > meaning of ‘proposition’. Peter, do you know if this is defined > somewhere by the w3C. Could you point us to the definition? > > 2) > I argued that propositions, in the sense of the meaning of a > sentence that is invariant through all the paraphrases and > translations of the sentence, rather than assertions or sentences as > the kinds of things that hold probability values. > > Kathy noted in the meeting that a problem with this definition is > that a system might assign different uncertainty values to 2 > different logically equivalent sentences. I can imagine that this > is possible, but where it occurs I would think it nothing more than > a weakness in the system, not in the definition I’ve suggested. For > example, I might misunderstand ‘Es regnet morgen’ as ‘it will rain > this morning’ rather than ‘it will rain tomorrow’ (if I’ve > translated correctly) and assign it a different probability value > than that which I’m assigning to ‘it will rain tomorrow’. But I > think that anyone who observed my doing this would point out that > it’s a contradiction, i.e., that since these things have the same > meaning, I’m obligated to assign them the same probability value. > In other words, it is in virtue of their representing the same > proposition that I’m obligated to assign them the same probability > value. So, I think this only helps to underscore the fact that > when we explore our intuitions, we believe that propositions are the > real p.v. holders. > > 3) > Anne, you said at one point that “not all beliefs can appropriately > be represented as numerical values” and that it “glosses over > inconsistencies - beliefs may be logically incompatible”. I was > intrigued by the suggestion, can you say more? > > > Again, thanks all for a stimulating telecon on Wednesday. Apologies > in advance if this address is not the right forum for these > discussions. > > Best regards, > > Mike Pool > > -------------------------------- > > > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Ken Laskey > MITRE Corporation, M/S H305 phone: 703-983-7934 > 7151 Colshire Drive fax: 703-983-1379 > McLean VA 22102-7508 >
Received on Monday, 16 July 2007 08:24:11 UTC