Re: Thinking on the semantics of Named Graphs

>Let <N,V,U,B,L> be a set of Named Graphs, and A a subset of dom(N) 
>representing the accepted graphs in some given situation (e.g. an 
>agent, called Alice, accepts some graphs). Based on the definition 
>of the meaning of the accepted Named Graphs <A,N>, I have some 
>thoughts as follows:
>
>1. Accepted  graphs are merged, so an URI occuring in two accepted 
>graphs must has a unique meaning for the concerned agent, e.g. Alice.
>
>However, in many cases, Alice may accept two different views on a 
>same thing (these two views may conflict), or two accepted views use 
>a same URI to denote different things.  Alice knows that, but the 
>current framework doesn't provide a mechanism to cope with these 
>issues.

That is true more generally. There are no techniques for resolving 
differences of opinion, or for contextualizing content, in any extant 
SWeb language. This is a difficult topic that nobody has looked at 
seriously yet in an SW context, as far as I know.

>2. Within an accepted graph, there is a triple saying some 
>unaccepted graph is a truth, or one graph log:implies another graph 
>(or other properties, such as eg:premise and eg:conclusion, are 
>used) . How about the meaning of these constructs?

The  meanings, seems to me, ought to follow from the model theories. 
Im not sure what you mean by an unaccepted graph ( unasserted?) . If 
it is claimed to be true by an asserted graph, it IS an asserted 
graph, right? Asserted (by X)  = claimed (by X) to be true; so if 
that includes a claim that Y is true, then Y is thereby asserted.

Pat
-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------------
IHMC	(850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973   home
40 South Alcaniz St.	(850)202 4416   office
Pensacola			(850)202 4440   fax
FL 32501			(850)291 0667    cell
phayes@ihmc.us       http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes

Received on Thursday, 1 July 2004 12:48:44 UTC