Re: Handling Intention in Ontology

You may care to follow the conversation on this list (*
*with following headings:-
Semantic Web Languages
Semantic Layers (Was Interpretation of RDF reification)
Interpretation of RDF reification
When are RDF statements asserted?

These sorts of discusions show there are no proper or good ways (within
syntactic limits) to achieving many semantic aims. Folksomonies take a style
of expression and extend it into different areas, solving different domain
specific problems on the way. They might serve as templates for what you
want to achieve. But they are only agreements, if followed by others, and,
as such compromises.
Would you want others to take up your schema, who would be the intended user
base and might they have different requirements to your own?
I think that designating a label "intention" (a property and a class) so
that the class may have additional properties you are interested in that
qualify intention, such as hasEnactedIntention [true|false] is straight
forward enough.
But the difficulty is in why you might be recording an intention.
As I understand it BDI == belief, desire and intention and is otherwise
known as intention, belief and desire, is based on the notion that the three
terms are dependant on each other (hence my reordering as I have learnt the
relationship that way round).
Where are the lines of demarcation in your model? For instance someone may
make a booking with an intention of attending it, but they may fail to for
all sorts of reasons. Are you interested in those reasons? Would you be
prepared to hide circumstances that are caused by the party with whom the
booking is made as failure of intention on the part of your agent?
On 28/03/06, Matt Williams <> wrote:
> Dear List,
> I've currently got a basic clinical ontology (see
> for details) that has a few
> classes for people/ patients/ diseases/ treatments/ etc.
> I'm trying to add the idea of intentional-ity to it (a la BDI model, but
> nothing at complex as a full BDI model). For example, I would like to
> say that Mrs. X has the intention to have Treatment Y. At some other
> point, I might like to say that Mrs. X has Treatment Y (i.e. she has
> committed to it and gone ahead).
> My current idea is to have a "hasIntention" property and "Intention"
> Class, so we might say:
> Mrs X. hasIntention Int.1 hasTreatment Chemotherapy to express the idea
> that Mrs. X has an Intention to have some Chemotherapy.
> Has anyone done this before? Any other ideas?
> Thanks,
> Matt
> --
> Dr. M. Williams MRCP(UK)
> Clinical Research Fellow,
> Cancer Research UK
> +44 (0)7834 899570

Received on Friday, 31 March 2006 09:10:16 UTC