- From: Ken Laskey <klaskey@mitre.org>
- Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2007 11:32:36 -0400
- To: Peter.Vojtas@mff.cuni.cz
- Cc: public-xg-urw3@w3.org
Very good! For those of us who will not be there, please have someone send a quick email to the list and tell us something of your discussions. Ken On Jul 19, 2007, at 10:48 AM, Peter Vojtas wrote: > > All URW3 discussion participants, > > We can try to meet Tuesday morning before or after opening (that me > http://kocour.ms.mff.cuni.cz/~vojtas/) and make an appointment for > personal discussion (maybe Trevor can arrange a room?). > > Next year is also IPMU in Malaga, there is already a tradition of > having session FLSW on Fuzzy Logic in Semantic Web, but now it would > be more reasonable to organize our own and/or joint session? - > deadline for special session proposal is in September - maybe/probably > Malaga organizers will be in London too (of course our first personal > meeting will be in Korea). > > Greetings Peter > > This bellow is a toy example and it depends on who said it and in what > context - arranging a basketball team or medicine diagnosis or looking > for a partner :-) > > Umberto Straccia wrote: >> On Jul 19, 2007, at 10:22 AM, Trevor Martin wrote: >>> This is precisely the choice faced by implementers of logic >>> programming + uncertainty languages .... you can extend the >>> language and the inference mechanism or express and process the >>> uncertainty within the standard language. >>> >>> tall(John) : 0.7 >>> >>> vs >>> >>> tall(John, 0.7) >>> >>> (... in both cases, without saying what 0.7 represents) >>> >>> The former approach gives you more control, reduces to "standard" >>> notation when the uncertainty is omitted and (I think) makes the >>> semantics clearer; >>> the latter involves no change to existing notation (hence is easier >>> to sell ) but gets messy when only some of the representation >>> requires the uncertainty and obscures the meaning of the annotation. >>> >> Not exactly, Trevor. What should be a minimal setting (you know that >> there are 200+ citations about Logic Programming, uncertainty/ >> vagueness ....) be ? What semantics? >> Even an expression of the form >> P(c1, ...cn): 0.7 >> is open to a pletora of semantic options ... >> What I say is is that >>> tall(John) : 0.7 >> should rather be represented like (guided by the uncertainty ontology) >> sentence s IS tall(John) AND s HasTruthDegree = 0.7 >> Anyway, that's just my opinion ... > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ----- Ken Laskey MITRE Corporation, M/S H305 phone: 703-983-7934 7151 Colshire Drive fax: 703-983-1379 McLean VA 22102-7508
Received on Thursday, 19 July 2007 15:32:28 UTC