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

RE: The X Datatype Proposal

From: <Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2001 11:44:46 +0200
Message-ID: <2BF0AD29BC31FE46B788773211440431621805@trebe003.NOE.Nokia.com>
To: phayes@ai.uwf.edu
Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org

I think again we're just talking around each other,
and since this isn't a crucial topic at the moment
for the WG, I'll leave it for "later".

Patrick


> -----Original Message-----
> From: ext Pat Hayes [mailto:phayes@ai.uwf.edu]
> Sent: 16 November, 2001 20:47
> To: Stickler Patrick (NRC/Tampere)
> Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
> Subject: RE: The X Datatype Proposal
> Importance: Low
> 
> 
> >  > -----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.
> 
> But until something gets asserted, we don't even have any ontologies; 
> we just have content-free syntax.
> 
> >aThus, 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.
> 
> I disagree. If they don't agree about what is asserted, they can't 
> even know what one another are saying, so they can't do any 
> operations on the knowledge base. If nothing is asserted, the 
> knowledge base is empty.
> 
> >The idea that assertion is a primitive of the statement presumes
> >that a given knowledge base only holds one world view, so to speak.
> 
> Well, it does indeed assume that they agree about what counts as 
> being asserted. But I think we have to assume this much agreement 
> just in order for communication to be possible at all. If I don't 
> know if you are asserting something or just, as it were, holding it 
> up to be contemplated, then how can I know what to make of it, or 
> what I should be expected to infer from it?
> 
> Pat
> -- 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> IHMC					(850)434 8903   home
> 40 South Alcaniz St.			(850)202 4416   office
> Pensacola,  FL 32501			(850)202 4440   fax
> phayes@ai.uwf.edu 
> http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/~phayes
> 
Received on Monday, 19 November 2001 04:44:41 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:42:45 EDT