W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-interest@w3.org > November 2002

Re: definitionOf

From: Richard H. McCullough <rhm@cdepot.net>
Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 04:58:11 -0800
Message-ID: <004101c29094$7c042080$bd7ba8c0@rhm8200>
To: "RDF-Interest" <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>, "Jon Hanna" <jon@spin.ie>
Assuming that a common vocabulary has been established, I can judge person A's statement about reality by
1. checking the statement for contradictions and false assumptions
2. comparing it to my own personal knowledge -- based on individuals & logical inference
3. comparing it to statements made by other people 
4. deciding how much I "trust" statements made by person A & other people

I haven't been a member of the rdf-interest group very long, but there have been some discussions of "trust".
Dick McCullough 
knowledge := man do identify od existent done
knowledge haspart list of proposition

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Jon Hanna 
  To: RDF-Interest 
  Sent: Wednesday, November 20, 2002 2:48 AM
  Subject: RE: definitionOf

  > Individuals are directly perceived; that an individual
  > exists cannot be denied.  Species are abstractions from
  > reality; a species (or more generally, any concept) is
  > a "floating abstraction" if there are no individuals to tie
  > it to reality.  In other words, if a species cannot be
  > "reduced" to individuals, it does not exist.

  Then in the context of the web, where we do not obtain the resource but only
  statements about it and representations of it, do we have any individuals at
  all, or at least anything that we can say is an individual with any degree
  of confidence?

  This is stepping into metaphysics though, and metaphysics is a pastime :)
Received on Wednesday, 20 November 2002 07:58:20 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:07:43 UTC