W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > November 2001

RE: The X Datatype Proposal

From: <Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com>
Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2001 14:25:38 +0200
Message-ID: <2BF0AD29BC31FE46B7887732114404316217E1@trebe003.NOE.Nokia.com>
To: phayes@ai.uwf.edu
Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org


> -----Original Message-----
> From: ext Pat Hayes [mailto:phayes@ai.uwf.edu]
> Sent: 16 November, 2001 00:39
> To: Stickler Patrick (NRC/Tampere)
> Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
> Subject: RE: The X Datatype Proposal
> 
> 
> >....
> >I fully agree, which is the default for the X model. A
> >statement is just a statement. It is not asserted until
> >and unless someone makes a statement about that statement
> >that indicates that it was asserted, e.g. via the
> >proposed property assertedBy (some authority).
> 
> But what makes THAT asserted? You seem to be in a vicious regress 
> here. If a statement isn't asserted until another statement about it 
> is asserted, then that in turn isn't asserted until an even bigger 
> statement about IT is asserted, and so on.

I take your point, but my point was that a given system (or process)
itself defines the criteria by which statements are selected as
relevant (asserted) and it may utilize particular ontologies to
base that selection on.

Thus, what one process may consider "asserted", another may not, and
yet they all can operate at the same time on the same knowledge base
of statements without their "world views" getting in the way of one
another.

The idea that assertion is a primitive of the statement presumes
that a given knowledge base only holds one world view, so to speak.

Patrick
 
Received on Friday, 16 November 2001 07:26:48 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:42:43 EDT