Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
You can also use RDF reification and old fashioned certainty factors to cross the bridge : [Nancy hasVirus #SARS] hasCertainty 0.01 Cheers, Danny. > -----Original Message----- > From: Jonathan Borden [mailto:jonathan@o...] > Sent: 26 April 2003 22:17 > To: Mike Champion; xml-dev@l... > Subject: Re: Statistical vs "semantic web" approaches to > making sense of the Net > > > Mike Champion wrote: > > > > This raises a question, for me anyway: If it will take a "better Google > > than Google" (or perhaps an "Autonomy meets RDF") that uses Baysian or > > similar statistical techniques to create the markup that the > Semantic Web > > will exploit, what's the point of the semantic markup? Why won't people > > just use the "intelligent" software directly? Wearing my "XML database > > guy" hat, I hope that the answer is that it will be much more efficient > and > > programmer-friendly to query databases generated by the 'bots containing > > markup and metadata to find the information one needs. But I must admit > > that 5-6 years ago I thought the world would need standardized, widely > > deployed XML markup before we could get the quality of searches that > Google > > allows today using only raw HTML and PageRank heuristic algorithm. > > > > So, anyone care to pick holes in my assumptions, or reasoning? If one > does > > accept the hypothesis that it will take smart software to produce the > > markup that the Semantic Web will exploit, what *is* the case for > believing > > that it will be ontology-based logical inference engines rather than > > statistically-based heuristic search engines that people will > be using in > > 5-10 years? Or is this a false dichotomy? > > Yes this is an entirely false dichotomy but you've asked an extremely > important question. > > Forget all the hype that we've been hearing about the SW/AI etc and let's > look at what the current reality is -- OWL is *fundamentally* about > classifications. OWL "reasoners" are rightly termed "classifiers" but OWL > doesn't employ statistics -- a thing is or isn't a member of a class. > > To link OWL type classifiers with real world data, there must be > a leap that > puts something into a class in the first place and this is where > statistical-type processors might function. Let's use the > following example: > Suppose we have a bunch of noisy binary data about a group of > people some of > whom let's say have SARS, some of the data might be audio, some > video, some > text etc etc. > > Now suppose we have a statistical process that is able to cluster > individuals together in groups. This processor might emit the following > class: > > <owl:Class rdf:ID="Foo"> > <owl:oneOf rdf:parseType="Literal"> > <ex:person rdf:resource="#Bill"/> > <ex:person rdf:resource="#Dave"/> > <ex:person rdf:resource="#Sue"/> > <ex:person rdf:resource="#Nancy"/> > <ex:person rdf:resource="#Freddy"/> > <owl:oneOf> > </owl:Class> > > our reasoner might be able to derive that > > <owl:Class rdf:ID="Bar"> > <owl:intersectionOf> > <owl:Class rdf:resource="#hasCough"/> > <owl:Class rdf:resource="#hasFever"/> > <owl:Class rdf:resource="#hasVirus.x233444"/> > ... > > #Foo owl:subClassOf #Bar > > and even, in the proper circumstances that... > > #Bar owl:sameClassAs #SARS > > so the Bayesian/statistical processes might be very well used to > jumpstart a > logical classification process that tells us something quite useful. > > Jonathan > > > ----------------------------------------------------------------- > The xml-dev list is sponsored by XML.org <http://www.xml.org>, an > initiative of OASIS <http://www.oasis-open.org> > > The list archives are at http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/ > > To subscribe or unsubscribe from this list use the subscription > manager: <http://lists.xml.org/ob/adm.pl> >
|
