- From: Pierre-Antoine Champin <pierre-antoine.champin@ercim.eu>
- Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2021 10:18:03 +0200
- To: Henry Story <henry.story@bblfish.net>, public-n3-dev@w3.org
- Message-ID: <e06b0986-500f-22d9-b957-bc4513ac2b32@ercim.eu>
Hi Henry, all, On 17/08/2021 11:03, Henry Story wrote: > Hi, > > I was wondering how many modal concepts could be deal with > in N3. Perhaps there is already a good study of those? > > I guess we could perhaps say that Truth could be considered modal, > and that is already defined with log:Truth. > > Necessity could be easy: > > { 2 + 2 = 4 } a log:Necessity . > > It means one could always add it to any graph, even those of one’s > opponents. Perhaps definitions in ontologies are like that? Perhaps not. > > {cat color Green} log:Possible, may be a way of disproving something. I guess we could define modalities as classes of quoted graphs, and add some axioms of the form { {?s ?p ?o} a :Necessity } => { ?s ?p ?o }. { ?s ?p ?o } => { { ?s ?p ?o } a :Possibility }. { ?f a :Necessity; log:includes { ?s ?p ?o }} => { {?s ?p ?o} a :Necessity }. { ?f a :Possibility; log:includes { ?s ?p ?o }} => { {?s ?p ?o} a :Possibility }. but beyond that, what could we do with it? I am not an expert in modal logic, but my intuition is that without a proper negation, that won't bring us very far... > Two that are particularly useful in computing are SHOULD and MUST, > as they are used by ietf and w3c specs. It would be nice to at least > be able to explain what kind of concepts those are. They somehow > seem related to a goal Something MUST be done - if a goal (e.g. communication) > is to be achieved. It's an appealing notion, but could you develop it a little? > > > Henry Story > > https://co-operating.systems > WhatsApp, Signal, Tel: +33 6 38 32 69 84 > Twitter: @bblfish > >
Attachments
- application/pgp-keys attachment: OpenPGP public key
Received on Thursday, 26 August 2021 08:18:25 UTC