Re: Proposed response to Ken Laskey

Done in the editor's draft:

Jeff wrote:
> Jim Hendler's proposed response to Ken Laskey included the following:
> >>
> >>  While OWL in its present form does not intrinsically support such
> >>  probablistic or conditional associations useful in real semantic queries,
> >>  application-specific semantics could be encoded in OWL to support such
> >>  functionality.
> >>  </comment>
> >
> >Actually, the use case was talking about defeasible inheritance
> >reasoning, not probability. Although probability can be clearly of use
> >in some use cases, the working group did not consider it an important
> >requirement, although support for probabilistic information is implied
> >by Requirement R12. Attaching Information to Statements. However,
> >you are right that the "typically" is misleading here, and therefore
> >we will change this to read
> >"...a `Late Georgian chest of drawers', in the absence of other
> >information, would be assumed to be `made of mahogany.'  This
> >knowledge ... "
> >which we agree will be less misleading.
> It may be too late to add, but I thought that Jeff had agreed to
> specifically add mention of defeasible inheritance reasoning in the
> "Default property value" objective in the Requirements document.  Is there
> a problem with making this change?
> -Evan

Received on Tuesday, 22 July 2003 11:20:24 UTC