- From: <Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com>
- Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2001 11:44:46 +0200
- To: phayes@ai.uwf.edu
- Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
I think again we're just talking around each other, and since this isn't a crucial topic at the moment for the WG, I'll leave it for "later". Patrick > -----Original Message----- > From: ext Pat Hayes [mailto:phayes@ai.uwf.edu] > Sent: 16 November, 2001 20:47 > To: Stickler Patrick (NRC/Tampere) > Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > Subject: RE: The X Datatype Proposal > Importance: Low > > > > > -----Original Message----- > >> From: ext Pat Hayes [mailto:phayes@ai.uwf.edu] > >> Sent: 16 November, 2001 00:39 > >> To: Stickler Patrick (NRC/Tampere) > >> Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > >> Subject: RE: The X Datatype Proposal > >> > >> > >> >.... > >> >I fully agree, which is the default for the X model. A > >> >statement is just a statement. It is not asserted until > >> >and unless someone makes a statement about that statement > >> >that indicates that it was asserted, e.g. via the > >> >proposed property assertedBy (some authority). > >> > >> But what makes THAT asserted? You seem to be in a vicious regress > >> here. If a statement isn't asserted until another > statement about it > >> is asserted, then that in turn isn't asserted until an even bigger > >> statement about IT is asserted, and so on. > > > >I take your point, but my point was that a given system (or process) > >itself defines the criteria by which statements are selected as > >relevant (asserted) and it may utilize particular ontologies to > >base that selection on. > > But until something gets asserted, we don't even have any ontologies; > we just have content-free syntax. > > >aThus, what one process may consider "asserted", another may not, and > >yet they all can operate at the same time on the same knowledge base > >of statements without their "world views" getting in the way of one > >another. > > I disagree. If they don't agree about what is asserted, they can't > even know what one another are saying, so they can't do any > operations on the knowledge base. If nothing is asserted, the > knowledge base is empty. > > >The idea that assertion is a primitive of the statement presumes > >that a given knowledge base only holds one world view, so to speak. > > Well, it does indeed assume that they agree about what counts as > being asserted. But I think we have to assume this much agreement > just in order for communication to be possible at all. If I don't > know if you are asserting something or just, as it were, holding it > up to be contemplated, then how can I know what to make of it, or > what I should be expected to infer from it? > > Pat > -- > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > IHMC (850)434 8903 home > 40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office > Pensacola, FL 32501 (850)202 4440 fax > phayes@ai.uwf.edu > http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/~phayes >
Received on Monday, 19 November 2001 04:44:41 UTC