- From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
- Date: Thu, 1 Jul 2004 18:09:45 -0500
- To: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Cc: 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" Yes, I spoke carelessly, sorry. I should have said that if X asserts that Y is true, then to the extent that X is committed to the assertion of Y's truth, X is also committed to the assertion of Y. Of course if I don't believe X to be reliable, then I may place no more faith in that assertion of Y than I do in anything else X asserts. This all makes sense only if there is a way for one graph to talk about the truth of another, which I don't think there is, strictly, unless we count owl:imports as a kind of remote assertion. 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 19:09:40 UTC