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

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-xg-urw3-request@w3.org [mailto:public-xg-urw3-request@w3.org]
> On Behalf Of Mitch Kokar
> Sent: Monday, July 30, 2007 9:01 PM
> To: 'Kathryn Blackmond Laskey'; 'Giorgos Stoilos'
> Cc: public-xg-urw3@w3.org
> Subject: RE: [URW3 public] OWL extensions [was Re: [URW3] ... three
> questions based on the last telecon]
> 
> 
> I thought that this was a very good example of the case where there is
> some
> information, but even if it is in a precise form, due to the
> incompleteness,
> the inference engine cannot figure out what the current height of the
> person
> is. In that case, the inference engine, if it could handle uncertainty,
> could return some value with a qualification on the certainty of the
> result.
> On the other hand, if the inference engine cannot handle uncertainty, all
> it
> can do is just say "I don't know".
> 

I don't see any incompleteness here. The DB either has some height from the
interval [10,230] or it does not (contains null).  Now if the measurement is
correct or how much accurate is it is a different story, which as said in
previous mails it is not that significant for this use case. 

-gstoil

> ==Mitch
> 
> 
>    > -----Original Message-----
>    > From: public-xg-urw3-request@w3.org
>    > [mailto:public-xg-urw3-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of
>    > Kathryn Blackmond Laskey
>    > Sent: Monday, July 30, 2007 7:51 AM
>    > To: Giorgos Stoilos; 'Kathryn Blackmond Laskey'
>    > Cc: public-xg-urw3@w3.org
>    > Subject: RE: [URW3 public] OWL extensions [was Re: [URW3]
>    > ... three questions based on the last telecon]
>    >
>    >
>    > I agree that inaccuracies in height measurements are
>    > typically not a serious concern.  My point was that even
>    > so, a person's height could be wrong because the person
>    > grew taller.
>    >
>    > K
>    >
>    >
>    > At 2:43 PM +0300 7/30/07, Giorgos Stoilos wrote:
>    > >  > -----Original Message-----
>    > >>  From: Kathryn Blackmond Laskey [mailto:klaskey@gmu.edu]
>    > >>  Sent: Sunday, July 29, 2007 8:51 PM
>    > >>  To: Giorgos Stoilos; Peter.Vojtas@mff.cuni.cz; 'Ken Laskey'
>    > >>  Cc: 'Kathryn Blackmond Laskey'; public-xg-urw3@w3.org;
>    > 'Umberto Straccia'
>    > >>  Subject: RE: [URW3 public] OWL extensions [was Re:
>    > [URW3] ... three
>    > >>  questions based on the last telecon]
>    > >>
>    > >>  >...in order for the system to
>    > >>  >return the exact height of each person and then a
>    > local processing method
>    > >>  to
>    > >>  >fuzzify the heights...
>    > >>
>    > >  > That is assuming the exact heights are available.
>    > For many of the
>    > >>  problems we are concerned about, there will be values in the
>    > >>  database, but we cannot assume they are correct.
>    > >
>    > >I see that this is the case in other types of
>    > applications, like situation
>    > >awareness and I fully concur. But I don't think there is
>    > much to trouble in
>    > >the aforementioned case. There is insignificant
>    > difference if someone 178cm
>    > >is inserted as 179cm or even 180cm in our use case.
>    > >
>    > >>
>    > >>  The database may contain accurate height measures for
>    > some of the
>    > >>  people, and either null values (height is unknown) or
>    > imputed values
>    > >>  (a guess or inference based on other available data
>    > for the person)
>    > >>  for some of the people.  Maybe the information is out
>    > of date.  If a
>    > >>  person is 19 years old, we cannnot assume that a
>    > 6-year-old height
>    > >>  measurement is accurate.  On the other hand, if the
>    > person is 30
>    > >>  years old, then the height 6 years ago is probably fine.
>    > >>
>    > >
>    > >I don't understand your point here. Are you suggesting
>    > that uncertainty
>    > >could solve these issues?
>    > >
>    > >-gstoil
>    > >
>    > >>  K
>    >
>    >
>

Received on Monday, 30 July 2007 20:19:08 UTC