- From: Guha <guha@guha.com>
- Date: Wed, 24 May 2000 09:26:29 -0700
- To: Graham Klyne <GK@dial.pipex.com>
- CC: RDF interest group <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
The way the AI folks have been modelling contexts --- if source--arc-->target (written as arc(source, target)) is in context C, you write it as ist(C, arc(source, target)). "ist" is read as "is True In". C is itself a first class object (i.e., a resource). The collection of statements that are true in C could be closed under deduction. The common frameworks for contexts allow for lifting of statements from one context to another. i.e., if a statement P is true in C1, one can conclude that it is true in C2. Guha Graham Klyne wrote: > I retract the bit about linking contexts to statements -- it's no > improvement as far as I can tell... > > At 03:30 PM 5/24/00 +0100, Graham Klyne wrote: > >There is still the problem of finding all statements to which a given > >context applies, but, if necessary, this might be overcome by having > >back-links from the context: > > > >>T --rdf:type--> SignedDocument > >>T --principal--> Alice > >>T --algorithm--> RSA > >>T --statement--> digest:<hash1> > >>... > >>T --statement--> digest:<hashN> > >>digest:<hash1> --context--> T > >>... > >>digest:<hashN> --context--> T > >><statement 1> > >>... > >><statement N> > > (Unfortunately, the back-links don't point to the statements...) > > #g > > ------------ > Graham Klyne > (GK@ACM.ORG)
Received on Wednesday, 24 May 2000 12:27:18 UTC