RE: [URW3 public] Re: [URW3] ... three questions based on the last telecon

Yes, I agree. I did not try to imply that this would be sufficient. We still
have all the other stuff in the ontology to talk about the type of the
uncertainty (not necessarily probability) we have for a given sentence.
Again, what we have in the ontology now would need to be reifined, I'm sure.

==Mitch


   > -----Original Message-----
   > From: Ken Laskey [mailto:klaskey@mitre.org] 
   > Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2007 7:44 AM
   > To: mkokar@vistology.com
   > Cc: 'Kathryn Blackmond Laskey'; Peter.Vojtas@mff.cuni.cz; 
   > public-xg-urw3@w3.org
   > Subject: Re: [URW3 public] Re: [URW3] ... three questions 
   > based on the last telecon
   > 
   > Again, I think this implies that a probability value alone 
   > is insufficient because you need to know something about 
   > how the value was assigned before you can combine it with 
   > other probabilities, i.e.  
   > values that may derive from inconsistent approaches.
   > 
   > Ken
   > 
   > On Jul 18, 2007, at 6:50 AM, Mitch Kokar wrote:
   > 
   > > This is a good point. So in one of my previous emails I 
   > suggested that  
   > > we
   > > have "complex sentences", i.e., sentences consisting of 
   > multiple  
   > > sentences.
   > > Then each sentence could have uncertainty assigned to 
   > it. I still  
   > > think an
   > > "elementary sentence" could be assigned a probability. 
   > For complex  
   > > sentences
   > > we could have probabilities for the sentences that are 
   > "part of" the
   > > sentence, as well as the overall probability for the 
   > complex sentence.  
   > > This
   > > would provide the flexibility that you are asking for, right?
   > >
   > > ==Mitch
   > >
   > >
   > >
   > >> -----Original Message-----
   > >> From: public-xg-urw3-request@w3.org
   > >> [mailto:public-xg-urw3-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of
   > >> Kathryn Blackmond Laskey
   > >> Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2007 11:31 PM
   > >> To: Ken Laskey; Peter.Vojtas@mff.cuni.cz
   > >> Cc: public-xg-urw3@w3.org
   > >> Subject: Re: [URW3 public] Re: [URW3] ... three questions
   > >> based on the last telecon
   > >>
   > >>
   > >>>> What the sentence is about is important for our decision about
   > >>>> uncertainty assignment - e.g. if I know a contradicting
   > >> information,
   > >>>> or a consequence from a trusted site, it will influence
   > >> my uncertainty
   > >>>> assignment.
   > >>>> Uncertainty about the weather is no more uncertain when
   > >> the tome is
   > >>>> gone
   > >>>
   > >>> So it appears that I may need to convey information on
   > >> what influenced
   > >>> my uncertainty assignment.  Note, this is not saying I need to
   > >>> represent what the sentence is about but rather I may
   > >> need to point to
   > >>> the mechanisms that were developed by "other communities"
   > >> and that I am
   > >>> using as the (or a) basis of my assessment.
   > >>
   > >> I note here that probability is not truth-functional.
   > >> That is, if I know the probability of A and the
   > >> probability of B, I don't necessarily know the probability
   > >> of A-and-B.  This is a very important characteristic of
   > >> probability. It is a source of great power, and it is also
   > >> the reason straightforward attempts to do uncertainty
   > >> propagation by attaching "certainty factors" to
   > >> propositions and rules works only in very constrained
   > >> problems.  This is important for us, because annotating
   > >> sentences with uncertainty values isn't going to work for
   > >> many interesting problems.
   > >>
   > >> Kathy
   > >>
   > >>
   > >
   > >
   > >
   > -----------------------------------------------------------
   > ------------- 
   > -----
   > 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 12:59:40 UTC