Kathy, (01)
In one sense, any ontology can be used with probabilities
at the metalevel. In IKL, for example, one could write: (02)
(Prob (that (blue x)) 0.7) (03)
to say that the probability that x is blue is 0.7. This
method keeps the ontology and the probabilities completely
separated: Nothing inside the proposition marked by "that"
mentions any probabilities, and the probability expressions
outside the proposition do not use the types and relations
of the ontology. (04)
KBL> My colleagues, students and I have built several toy
> probabilistic ontologies. I've worked with colleagues
> to build artifacts that were called "probability models"
> but had features that one associates with ontologies, i.e,
> were built in expressive probabilistic languages with have
> types and individuals, subtypes and inheritance, attributes
> and relations. (05)
Do you and your colleagues integrate the probabilities with
the ontology more directly? If so, could you give some
examples to show how they interact more closely than the
IKL example above. (06)
John (07)
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontologforum/
Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontologforum/
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontologforumleave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
To Post: mailto:ontologforum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (08)
