4582Re: [TaxoCoP] Incorporating uncertainties into ontologies...
- May 31, 2013One more standard to think about (and note that PR-OWL is not a standard--I'm pretty familiar with the OWL landscape and this is the first time I've heard of it): The W3C's SKOS, in addition to allowing for storing things like scope notes and information about related terms, includes properties for storing exact match relationships but also broad match and close match relationships. I've never heard of any attempts to quantify how close a non-exact match is and to then use those quantities in application logic (the way that fuzzy logic is used in other application domains) but this does give you some added flexibility in adding data that can be used to enhance searches without asserting precise relationships.Bob DuCharmeOn Thu, May 30, 2013 at 1:01 PM, Keipat Patkei <keipat1962@...> wrote:Thanks for reading this. I hope members of this community might be able to point me to some online responses related to how one goes about "incorporating uncertainties" into ontologies when domain experts are in disagreement regarding the terms, relationships, assertions, and so on that should be part of them. How does one deal with this and does it lend itself to building "probabilistic ontologies?"I'm sort of stuck in thinking that the general approach to handling this is through consensus building, governance, ontology mapping, use of thesauri, and, perhaps, leveraging PR-OWL (I have very limited knowledge of it, and I suspect it isn't applicable.) Any thoughts on this? I don't mind being told I'm way off base here. Please advise and thanks to all.Keith DeWeese
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>