- From: Yuzhong Qu <yzqu@seu.edu.cn>
- Date: Fri, 2 Jul 2004 17:22:16 +0800
- To: "pat hayes" <phayes@ihmc.us>, "Jeremy Carroll" <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Cc: "www-archive" <www-archive@w3.org>
> > 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.
>
Sorry, some misunderstanding.
The intent of my example is not about "asserted by somebody" issue.
Let me restate it as follows:
X {...; Y a Truth; ...}
Y {......}
Z {......}
...
How about the meaning of <A, N>? where X is in A, and Y is not in A.
How about in the case X {....; Y log:implies Z; ...}
It seems to me that these constructs are not considered in the "Named Graph" paper.
Further, in the case X {....; {...} log:implies Y; ...}
The URIs within the accepted graphs should be merged, how about the ones in some unaccepted graph (such as Y)? and inner (unnamed) graph?
> Jeremy
>
Yuzhong
Received on Friday, 2 July 2004 05:19:21 UTC