- From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Fri, 02 Jul 2004 09:32:17 +0100
- To: Yuzhong Qu <yzqu@seu.edu.cn>
- Cc: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>, Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>, www-archive <www-archive@w3.org>
Yuzhong Qu wrote: >>>>>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? I am not sure if I assert a triple g assertedBy p . then what I am saying is not that g is true but that p has asserted it. If I am p then you may conclude that I think that g is true. If you are p and you believe me then you think that g is true, and so you may conclude g. If neither you or I are p, and you believe me, then you may conclude that g assertedBy p . So, I don't think this is particularly different from other triples. It's special features only come into play when the object is playing some role in the conversation. > > >>>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. That's interesting ... the performative in a wedding needs three people to assert it to make it valid: the bride, the groom and the priest. In a typical contract we may have two parties both of whom may make a performative which would be nullified if: - the other party does not make their performative - the contract is illegal > > >>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. > Why? I am not convinced that we need such higher-order capability in the semantic web; or if we do that it needs to be fully integrated with the lower order capabilities of RDF and OWL Jeremy
Received on Friday, 2 July 2004 04:33:39 UTC