[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
--- Didier PH Martin <martind@netfolder.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Still trying to find an answer to the question I
> came to the following
> conclusions:
>
> a) yes Google is a conceptual graph engine
> b) yes Google present us a fuzzy set logic
> Google is providing fuzzy
> set ownership (URI to predicate). The fuzzy set
> membership function's value
> can be set from the ranking position. To make
> Google's ontology explicit,
> what is needed is some scripts to translate the
> tacit ontology into an XML
> based explicit one.
Well, probably not literally "fuzzy set logic", but
one might THINK of the PageRank as yielding a degree
of membership in the fuzzy set defined by the query.
I personally find this a very useful conceptual model
... not sure if it is a "conceptual graph." I also,
FWIW, think of SpamBayes as evaluating the "degree of
membership in the fuzzy set of 'spam'", for what it's
worth. I vaguely recall (from grad school in the
'70s) that Bayes Theorem is isomorphic to some fuzzy
set theorem (of Zadeh?) ...
> So far so good. Now what do I do If after having
> translated this model or
> view of the world into RDF/OWL I try to merge that
> with an other
> conflicting view of the world?
That's a very interesting idea, IMHO. I think of the
RDF/OWL semantics as being driven by classical set
theory / non-fuzzy logic, but maybe they can be
extended to handle fuzziness as neatly as has been
done with set theory and logic themselves.
Anyway, I'm fascinated by these ideas Didier has been
throwing out, and I hope they go somewhere!
|
