- From: Ken Laskey <klaskey@mitre.org>
- Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2007 08:01:38 -0400
- To: Peter.Vojtas@mff.cuni.cz
- Cc: public-xg-urw3@w3.org
Let me make a suggestion of a minimum criteria for adding extensions: an extension can be proposed only if you can show its use in the context of an already discussed use case. This is motivated by several thoughts: 1. we will have solid examples of the extension; 2. we can more easily compare value of the extension against others proposed; 3. we move forward our analysis of the use cases; 4. if proposed extensions can be demonstrated only in the context of use cases already discussed, some of you will have the motivation to volunteer for leading the discussion at future telecons :-) Do we have agreement on this proposal? Ken P.S. per survey results, I will be setting up telecons for August 1, August 22, September 5, and September 19. On Jul 18, 2007, at 7:20 AM, Peter Vojtas wrote: > > Colleagues, > let me note that this wonderfull discussion has started by > questions about the nature of "sentence" and "proposition", and I have > added a word used by W3C documents "statement" and as an example a > triple. Of course a RIF rule can be also a subject to attachment of an > uncertainty. > I think this can be satisfactory solved by using current W3C > standards and interpretation of them. > > Now the problem has shifted a little bit further, to ontology. My > impression is that we need to have some (easy) examples in the begining > (Ken already assigned some sentences in his use case by uncertainty > type > and nature). > I like Mitch's ontology and so far only few extensions were > sugested - to have properties includesSentence, isaboutSentence and a > new sort of uncertainty models namely Similarity (maybe some other will > appear later - what are our criteria to enter new elements to > ontology). > The reification discussion was only an example from my part, and can > be soved > by Uncertainty has_derivation objective/subjective. > > I have also an idea and would like to ask ou for opinion. Most of > Ontological knowledge is described by expressions about being an > element > and being a subset (equal to), e.g. > > owl:oneOf, rdf:type, ... rdfs:subClassOf, ... > > what do you think about extensions like > > owl_ursw:usualy_oneOf, owl_ursw:often_oneOf, > owl_ursw:probably_subClassOf > > or we are just going to assign uncertainty to the statement > A rdf:type B, C rdfs:subClassOf D, ... > > I agree that sentences can be structured by logical connectives, and I > would be here very flexible and allow also fuzzy aggregation > operators. > > On the one side we are not going to specify syntax but we have to show > current standards are not necessary (of course not because of the > syntax of current standards - using W3C syntax we have in mind that > their semantics does not suffice) > > Greetings Peter > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ----- 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 12:01:45 UTC