Re: dontBelieve resource or statement?

sometimes a statement is false, sometimes it is not.
i usually present a simple example which is:
[ ?plane -> canLand -> ?airport ] -> validity -> not(Night)

if you do stuff at night, then the statement must not be considered.
during day, it is perfectly legal.

of course, depending on the plane, the airport, the time of the day,
or other external conditions (weather, traffic conditions), this
"conditional statement" may become more complex.

thanks to *reification*, a statement can be "annotated" in order to
define (for example) its conditions of validity.

hope it helps.

On Mon, Mar 10, 2008 at 11:20 PM, Golda Velez <gv@btucson.com> wrote:
>
>  On Monday 10 March 2008 12:50, Story Henry wrote:
>  > What we could develop btw, which would be RDF friendly, would be
>  > simple propositional attitudes towards contents of resources
>  > such as
>  >
>  > :me dontBelieve :joesFoafFile .
>  >
>  > That would be a little bit like the <a rel="nofollow"
>  > href="blahblah" ...> link .
>  >
>  > A simple vocabulary like that would be useable with the new quad
>  > stores that are being developed, and may even not require too much
>  > work developing.
>
>  Sure, and there are some if you want only to talk about resources.  TLD,
>  Annotea let you do some of that and I love that it is easy to make a
>  vocabulary to say what you want.
>
>  But, when you say you 'dontBelieve' a resource, what are you saying?    You
>  don't believe anything in it?  You don't believe Joe wrote it?  You don't
>  believe it exists?
>
>  If RDF is used to represent knowledge, why aren't we saying 'dontBelieve'
>  about  an RDF triple?
>
>  Ok, I know I'm beating a horse here, I'll try and stop...you guys are doing
>  the work to build this, I'm just a demanding user ;-)
>
>  --Golda
>
>

Received on Wednesday, 12 March 2008 08:23:37 UTC