RE: Contexts (not again!)

Aha! Thanks Graham, I thought my post had taken on a "dark" nature itself...

>I think the "dark triples" approach fizzled out.  My take is that
>we're not
>ready to standardize context mechanisms yet, but  still have hopes of
>prototyping my ideas in this area, which aren't vastly different from what
>I think you're describing.  I think that reification, or a
>variation of it,
>can be used (in a prototype implementation) to encode the triples that
>aren't asserted.

Right, ok. I'm no logician, but I do suspect that some possibilities in this
area could easily look good on paper but fail in practice, so I'm glad to
see the word 'implementation' there. So I look forward to seeing your
prototypes ;-)

>In the longer run, a standard solution may call for something more
>"hard-wired", with scope for optimization.  I think this might come about
>without invalidating/isolating the
>prototype approaches.

Ah, that's rather a more optimistic response than I imagined, I feel happier
about trying what I suggested.

Thanks again for rescuing this from the void.

Cheers,
Danny.