Re: Thinking on the semantics of Named Graphs


> >>>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 ....

In other words, suppose X (a named graph) is accepted by Alice, and the truth of Y (another named graph) is asserted within X, and Y is not in the list of graphs accepted by Alice, then the truth of Y is not guaranteed to be accepted by Alice.

If I understand it correctly, then the assertion of the truth of a graph is differentiated from other assertions. 

Does it?

> >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"

Funny example of social meaning issue.

The "I do" assertions are "believed" by the priest, but only the marriage asserted by the priest is accepted.

> 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.

Yes, we need  such a way.


Yuzhong Qu

Received on Friday, 2 July 2004 03:48:55 UTC