RE: Uncertainty Ontology

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kashyap, Vipul [mailto:VKASHYAP1@PARTNERS.ORG]
> Sent: Friday, June 15, 2007 5:25 PM
> To: gstoil@image.ece.ntua.gr; Kathryn Blackmond Laskey; mkokar@ece.neu.edu
> Cc: public-xg-urw3@w3.org
> Subject: RE: Uncertainty Ontology
> 
> 
> I would propose that instead of cluttering people's e-mail, we should add
> our
> comments directly on the wiki page..
> 
> This will be the best way to exchange ideas. The biggest advantage being
> that if
> someone else has already said something similar, you can do +1 to it...
> 

I do not agree with this. Imagine 7+ people discussing about the same thing,
replying or commenting to the argument of other people etc, replying on
replies and all these say for a weak. This would be a nightmare to have and
manage on the wiki. It could easily create something that after some time is
unreadable. An archived (and threaded) mailing list is the way things are
going on, on every W3C activity so far some of which are far larger than
this one (20+ people).

On the other hand we can put summaries of our discussion or concrete results
on the wiki.

-gstoil

p.s. I agree with Umberto that we should use OWL to build an Uncertainty
ontology. Then we can all agree with the semantics of what is proposed.

> My point of disagreement with Mitch was the following:
> 
> I view Bayesian networks, Fuzzy Logic, Dempster Schaeffer, etc. as
> representation/reasoning tools on uncertain information.
> So the proposal was: let's have two classes in the ontology:
> - Uncertainty
> - Techniques for dealing with Uncertainty...
> 
> Mitch seemed to suggest that these things categorized different types of
> uncertainty, though in my mind, given a piece of uncertain information, I
> can
> use any of the above techniques (possibly inappropriately) to represent
> and
> reason with it.
> 
> ... Will post this on the wiki soon...
> 
> ---Vipul
> 
> =======================================
> Vipul Kashyap, Ph.D.
> Senior Medical Informatician
> Clinical Informatics R&D, Partners HealthCare System
> Phone: (781)416-9254
> Cell: (617)943-7120
> http://www.partners.org/cird/AboutUs.asp?cBox=Staff&stAb=vik
> 
> To keep up you need the right answers; to get ahead you need the right
> questions
> ---John Browning and Spencer Reiss, Wired 6.04.95
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: gstoil@image.ece.ntua.gr [mailto:gstoil@image.ece.ntua.gr]
> > Sent: Friday, June 15, 2007 10:17 AM
> > To: Kathryn Blackmond Laskey; Giorgos Stoilos; mkokar@ece.neu.edu;
> > Kashyap, Vipul
> > Cc: public-xg-urw3@w3.org
> > Subject: Re: Uncertainty Ontology
> >
> >
> > I know that. That's why I did not send this mail as a reply to Paulo's
> > one.
> >
> > I just remember some specific discussion, I think it was Vipul
> questioning
> > about something about the differences on the types of uncertainties,
> > taking
> > place during the telecon. I also remember someone saying: "...discuss
> over
> > mail with Vipul and then summarize to the group." I wanted to make sure
> if
> > I
> > lister correctly or there is going to be a public discussion over mail
> > about
> > this issue, cause I haven't seen any mail so far (beware that Paulo's
> mail
> > was
> > *not* about the specific issue but about the uncertainty ontology in
> > general).
> >
> > Greetings,
> > -gstoil
> >
> > Kathryn Blackmond Laskey <klaskey@gmu.edu> said:
> >
> > > Paulo was referring to Mitch's preliminary draft ontology of
> > > uncertainty, which he posted to the Wiki:
> > >    http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/urw3/wiki/UncertaintyOntology
> > >
> > > At 11:05 AM +0300 6/15/07, Giorgos Stoilos wrote:
> > > >Hi all,
> > > >
> > > >Is the discussion about the differences on the types of
> > > >uncertainties, that took place on the telecon, taking place, or it
> > > >hasn't started yet? I believe that it would be very helpful for the
> > > >entire group to participate.
> > > >
> > > >Best,
> > > >-gstoil
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> >
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The information transmitted in this electronic communication is intended
> only for the person or entity to whom it is addressed and may contain
> confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission,
> dissemination or other use of or taking of any action in reliance upon
> this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient
> is prohibited. If you received this information in error, please contact
> the Compliance HelpLine at 800-856-1983 and properly dispose of this
> information.
>

Received on Friday, 15 June 2007 18:00:31 UTC