- From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Thu, 01 Jul 2004 18:24:00 +0100
- To: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>, Yuzhong Qu <yzqu@seu.edu.cn>, www-archive@w3.org, Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>, Chris Bizer <chris@bizer.de>
>> 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. > no, g assertBy p . only entails I(g) when we trust p (for instance if we are p). This is the asymmetry of performatives .... At the wedding the bride and groom say "I do" believing their love will outlive the universe, whereas those around mutter "it won't last three months" Jeremy
Received on Thursday, 1 July 2004 13:25:07 UTC