Dear Dan,
That is interesting. My thesis (3/4 done) is on integrating Ontologies
(using OWL-DL or OWL 1.1 as an exemplar) with Argumentation (which is an
extension of previous work in NM logics) to represent conflict. I'm
using Breast Cancer therapy choice as a domain.
I'll have a look at the links you sent and probably be in touch....
Matt
Dan Brickley wrote:
Matt Williams wrote:
I've been lurking & reading the discussion with interest.
It might be worth pointing out that there is an ongoing attempt to
classify/ represent evidential links/ weight/ etc. started in the
legal domain by people such as Wigmore and continued by people such as
David Schum & William Twining. There's currently a
Leverhulme-sponsored research programme on "Evidence Science",
centered at UCL, London.
Such efforts don't seem to easily map to rdf (they're often based on
Bayesian models), but might provide some inspiration, although some of
the legal niceties may be unnecessary.
Interesting! There's also another related group here in W3Cland - an
incubator on Uncertainty Reasoning for the Web, see
http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/urw3/ ...though things are only just
starting up. The only mailing list traffic so far is about scheduling
the first telecon.
The charter has some notes on what they're doing:
http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/urw3/charter ...and Bayes gets a few
mentions there.
My inclination with RDF and evidence/probability, ... is that without
reinventing the RDF graph model, it is likely easier to attach
probability and other annotations to collections of statements, rather
than to individual triples. This can be done for example by making
assertions about an RDF/XML document, ... and is somehow related to the
ability in SPARQL to associate a graph with a URI. For example see
http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-sparql-query/#queryDataset
cheers,
Dan
--
http://acl.icnet.uk/~mw
http://adhominem.blogsome.com/
+44 (0)7834 899570
