W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-interest@w3.org > December 2000

Re: Paradox and Contexts

From: Pierre-Antoine CHAMPIN <champin@bat710.univ-lyon1.fr>
Date: Fri, 08 Dec 2000 15:29:09 +0100
Message-ID: <3A30F035.C0BC0008@bat710.univ-lyon1.fr>
To: Graham Klyne <GK@Dial.pipex.com>
CC: ML RDF-interest <www-rdf-interest@w3c.org>
Graham Klyne wrote:
> >That is a question I had :
> >which context does the "linking" statement belong to ?
> 
> I think they may "belong to" any surrounding context in which the original
> context is held to apply.
> (...)
> My proposals use the 'asserts' property applied between contexts to achieve
> the effect of constructing a sequence of enclosing contexts (in a less
> general fashion than McCarthy/Guha) for a given statement.  This suggests
> to me that in the above sequence, the assertion ist(C2,S2) is a statement
> that "belongs to" C1:
>    ist(C1,ist(C2,S2))

That is what my guess was.

> (...) Another answer to your
> question might be that the 'asserts' statements do not (necessarily) belong
> to any of the contexts referenced in the corresponding RDF graph, but
> belong to some implied context of discourse (a meta-context?).
> 

Which is not very different from the previous answer.
In the first answer, you just assume you coud always "step back" from the context of the discourse and name it, which is exactly what you would do in natural language...

  Pierre-Antoine

-- 
Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the
universe is that none of it has tried to contact us.
(Bill Watterson -- Calvin & Hobbes)
Received on Friday, 8 December 2000 09:29:44 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:51:47 GMT