- From: Kathryn Blackmond Laskey <klaskey@gmu.edu>
- Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2007 23:32:11 -0400
- To: Umberto Straccia <umberto.straccia@isti.cnr.it>, public-xg-urw3@w3.org
>>.... 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) Independent of which way we go on tall(John) : 0.7 or tall(John,0.7), it will not be enough just to annotate sentences with a number expressing some degree of certainty or plausibility or membership or whatever. To do probabilistic reasoning, we need to be able to make conditional independence statements, and to express conditional probabilities. To do probability tractably depends on representations composed out of local modules, and these local modules are parameterized by conditional probabilities, not absolute probabilities. K
Received on Saturday, 21 July 2007 03:32:17 UTC