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

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mike Pool [mailto:mpool@convera.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2007 9:29 PM
> To: Giorgos Stoilos; Ken Laskey; Peter.Vojtas@mff.cuni.cz
> Cc: public-xg-urw3@w3.org
> Subject: RE: [URW3 public] OWL extensions [was Re: [URW3] ... three
> questions based on the last telecon]
> 
> Ken,
> 
> Are you talking about extensions to the ontology that we're using
> internally for use case annotation, i.e.,
> http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/urw3/wiki/UncertaintyOntology?action=At
> tachFile&do=get&target=Uncertainty.owl?
> 
> If so, I think we should all be given a deadline to approve this as the
> "final rough draft" version before we impose such a high threshold on
> adding extensions.
> 
> Giorgos, I'm a bit puzzled by your response to the proposed extension,
> but possibly because I misunderstand what is being proposed or the
> intended usage of the ontology.  We weren't suggesting that the ontology

Hi,

I was referring to Peter's extensions. Maybe I should have posted this
separately.

> we're using for use case annotation be proposed as an OWL extension for
> w3c approval and universal usage, were we?   If not, I don't think we
> need to worry too much about whether or not extant tool sets can process

Now I am confused :). The ontology is in OWL DL, right? So why wouldn't
tools process it or why do you speak of an OWL extension? 

Anyway, I think that the ontology is a very nice effort and at this point I
don't have any comments on it.

-gstoil

> it or whether it will meet with universal approbation, do we?
> 
> (That aside, in the end, I think it's counterproductive for us to
> constrain ourselves with an eye to what will fit easily within the
> current OWL standards.  We should at least allow ourselves the room to
> draw the conclusion that it's entirely inadequate if that's what the
> evidence and analysis suggests.)
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> Mike
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-xg-urw3-request@w3.org
> [mailto:public-xg-urw3-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Giorgos Stoilos
> Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2007 1:30 PM
> To: 'Ken Laskey'; Peter.Vojtas@mff.cuni.cz
> Cc: public-xg-urw3@w3.org
> Subject: RE: [URW3 public] OWL extensions [was Re: [URW3] ... three
> questions based on the last telecon]
> 
> 
> Hi Ken,
> 
> This sounds reasonable enough. But let me also stress another issue.
> 
> A proposed extension should be as minimal as possible in order to enjoy
> acceptance by the non-uncertainty community and persuade people that it
> could be adopted in their tools with a minimal effort. So also replying
> to
> Peter's mail, I do not agree with extensions like owl_ursw:usualy_oneOf,
> owl_ursw:often_oneOf, owl_ursw:probably_subClassOf, which to me do not
> seem
> minimal.
> 
> -gstoil
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: public-xg-urw3-request@w3.org
> [mailto:public-xg-urw3-request@w3.org]
> > On Behalf Of Ken Laskey
> > Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2007 3:02 PM
> > To: Peter.Vojtas@mff.cuni.cz
> > Cc: public-xg-urw3@w3.org
> > Subject: [URW3 public] OWL extensions [was Re: [URW3] ... three
> questions
> > based on the last telecon]
> >
> >
> > 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 Friday, 20 July 2007 06:15:08 UTC