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

Re: Paradox and Contexts

From: Graham Klyne <GK@Dial.pipex.com>
Date: Sat, 09 Dec 2000 18:18:55 +0000
Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20001209181627.00ad21c0@pop.dial.pipex.com>
To: Pierre-Antoine CHAMPIN <champin@bat710.univ-lyon1.fr>
Cc: ML RDF-interest <www-rdf-interest@w3c.org>
At 03:29 PM 12/8/00 +0100, Pierre-Antoine CHAMPIN wrote:
>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...

Since you put it that way... yes!  I guess the question then becomes:  how 
far does one step back?  To which the plausible answers seem to be "one 
step" or "all the way".

#g


------------
Graham Klyne
(GK@ACM.ORG)
Received on Sunday, 10 December 2000 10:19:49 GMT

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