- From: Ken Laskey <klaskey@mitre.org>
- Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2007 22:26:23 -0400
- To: "Giorgos Stoilos" <gstoil@image.ece.ntua.gr>
- Cc: <Peter.Vojtas@mff.cuni.cz>, "'Mike Pool'" <mpool@convera.com>, <public-xg-urw3@w3.org>
On Jul 16, 2007, at 7:33 AM, Giorgos Stoilos wrote: > > Guys, I don't think that using RDF triples to represent not only > uncertainty > but even knowledge on the web has anything to do with reason :); even > worse > using reification. > > As I said in my previous mail, I don't see how language extensions (or > ways > to represent uncertainty using W3C standards) have anything to do with > an > uncertainty ontology? > > Moreover, is it in this group's goal to propose such extensions or to > identify them? > It is the goal of this group (per the charter) to look at what uncertainty information needs to be captured, e.g. is a numerical value attached to a sentence/proposition/... sufficient? Under what circumstances is a numerical value sufficient? When it is not sufficient, what else is needed? While we can make "obvious" suggestions (should such suggestions become obvious), it is not within our charter to specify syntax. Ken P.S. If terminology used in other standards (W3C or otherwise) are useful in expressing our concepts, we should not invent new terms where none are needed. On the other hand, we should not feel compelled to use terms we feel are inadequate for our needs. > Finally, if we want to look into such extensions I am in favour of OWL > and > not RDF. > > -gstoil > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ----- Ken Laskey MITRE Corporation, M/S H305 phone: 703-983-7934 7151 Colshire Drive fax: 703-983-1379 McLean VA 22102-7508
Received on Wednesday, 18 July 2007 02:26:06 UTC