- From: Matt Williams <matthew.williams@cancer.org.uk>
- Date: Thu, 11 May 2006 15:43:46 +0100
- To: Semantic Web <semantic-web@w3.org>
Dear List, I'd like to get peoples thoughts on the following. I'm working on producing an argumentation system that is heavily based on ontological knowledge. Arguments are produced by gathering rules and facts together to support a claim, and my system limits the terms appearing in the rules to those in the ontology (for more info see the "Argumentation and Ontologies" paper at http://acl.icnet.uk/~mw). Negation is the basis of much argumentation, as it is used to define conflict. Because of these two things, the ontological notion of negation is important. For example, if we have the rule: Tamoxifen(x) -> Dead(x) then I want to develop a rule that says (roughly): notValues(Dead(x)) -> not Tamoxifen(x) Leaving aside the values bit, negating the Tamoxifen seems a bit difficult - because (as I understand it) it means "anything that is disjoint with tamoxifen" - which might include other treatments, but also might include sheep, planes and mobile phones.... Does this make sense - and if so, does anyone have any ideas about how to resolve it? Thanks, Matt -- Dr. M. Williams MRCP(UK) Clinical Research Fellow Cancer Research UK +44 (0)207 269 2953 +44 (0)7834 899570 http://acl.icnet.uk/~mw http://adhominem.blogspot.com
Received on Thursday, 11 May 2006 14:43:58 UTC