Re: Time for quintuples?

Am 26.09.2010 22:57, schrieb William Waites:
> On 10-09-23 19:43, Bob Ferris wrote:
>
>> However, these simple statements do not say anything about the levels or
>> weightings of these cognitive patterns of this person, rather then
>> something about the related activity, e.g. playing or watching, or
>> characteristic dynamics.
>
> Almost want to write down something like,
>
> ## alice thinks she knows a lot about football
> { alice believes { alice cco:expertise<Football>  }
> } weight 0.9 .
>
> ## alice thinks bob is a pretty good football player
> { alice believes { bob cco:skill<Football>  }
> } weight 0.8 .
>
> ## mary thinks alice is not quite so expert as she claims
> { mary believes { alice cco:expertise<Football>  }
> } weight 0.6 .
>
> A nice feature of this approach is I can refer to it
> in a nested way which keeps the scope clear,
>
> { ww believes G1 } weight 0.2 .
>
> where G1 is the example above - i.e. I think the example
> is mostly nonsense. On the basis of this I might come up
> with,
>
> { ww believes { bob cco:skill<Football>  }
> } weight 0.12 .
>
> or, I am not particularly confident at all that bob is
> a good football player on the basis of the facts
> available [*]
>
> For the specific of Bob's using CognitiveCharacteristics,
> is it true that the weight goes on the characteristic
> itself or does it make more sense in terms of belief
> about the characteristic?
>

Yes, it was intended to related the weight directly to the 
characteristic relation. Although, it is often more natural that people 
relate such things relative and not absolutely.
The use case you described, is a bit different, because you are 
modelling cognitive characteristics of someone other and make assumption 
about them. I think, the weight of the cognitive characteristic relation 
of the user is an internal context. On the other hand, the weight of an 
assumption is more a certainty to this statement and hence an external 
context to it (maybe something like provenance and trust).
However, since belief is also a cognitive pattern, it is included into 
the Cognitive Characteristics Ontology (see [1]) and you can also model 
such relations, e.g. with the topic "bob cco:skill<Football>", in the 
same way. For instance:

ex:ACC a cco:CognitiveCharacteristic ;
	cco:agent ex:ww ;
	cco:characteristic cco:belief ;
	cco:topic ex:ATopic ;
	wo:weight [
		a wo:Weight ;
		wo:weight_value 0.12 ;
		wo:scale ex:AScale
		] ;
	cco:activity <http://dbpedia.org/resource/Category:Thinking> .

ex:ATopic {
	ex:bob cco:skill <http://dbpedia.org/resource/Football_(soccer)> }	# 
here the semantics are getting a bit arguable

ex:AnotherCC a cco:CognitiveCharacteristic ;
	cco:agent ex:bob ;
	cco:characteristic cco:skill ;
	cco:topic http://dbpedia.org/resource/Football_(soccer)> ;
	cco:weight [
		a wo:Weight ;
		wo:weight_value 0.06 ;
		wo:scale ex:AScale
		] ;
	cco:activity <http://sw.opencyc.org/concept/Mx4rwJRiEpwpEbGdrcN5Y29ycA> .

ex:AScale a wo:Scale ;
    wo:min_weight 0.0 ;
    wo:max_weight 9.0 ;
    wo:step_size 0.1 .

Would you agree with that modelling?

Cheers,


Bob


[1] 
http://smiy.sourceforge.net/cco/spec/cognitivecharacteristics.html#belief

Received on Sunday, 26 September 2010 22:10:57 UTC