- From: Geoff Chappell <geoff@sover.net>
- Date: Sat, 5 Mar 2005 09:39:57 -0500
- To: "'ben syverson'" <w3@likn.org>, <semantic-web@w3.org>
> -----Original Message----- > From: semantic-web-request@w3.org [mailto:semantic-web-request@w3.org] On > Behalf Of ben syverson > Sent: Saturday, March 05, 2005 8:15 AM > To: semantic-web@w3.org > Subject: Re: A long but hopefully interesting introduction > [...] > > Of course you could always split the ontologies (in effect give each > > user > > their own ontology). That's more the way I've looked at it - i.e. each > > user > > has a view on the world, and is connected to those with similar views. > > New > > information is propagated through the network according to some > > threshold > > mechanism (e.g. two out of three of my friends believe fido is a dog, > > so I > > guess fido is a dog; if I believe fido is a cat and cats are disjoint > > with > > dogs than an inconsistency if created that will be automatically > > resolved > > using least change heuristic). > > The only issue I have with that is that individual users wouldn't get > the benefit of expanding on others' assertions. Every user would have > to explicitly say "fido is a dog," or at least vote on the assertion, > whereas if that "fact" were already established with a good confidence > rating by others, you wouldn't have to weigh in on it. I don't think that has to be the case. Under the right network conditions (reasonable clustering and/or low enough thresholds), a newly introduced fact that's not too contentious and that receives some initial support should spread through all or part of the network nearly automatically. But I can see it might be hard to make this sort of auto propagation compatible with your probability/voting model (since you really need to be able limit propagation with the possibility of inconsistency and I'm not sure you'd ever get an inconsistency with probabilistic reasoning). > Thanks Geoff! > > - ben -Geoff
Received on Saturday, 5 March 2005 14:40:23 UTC