RE: Graphs: intension and extension from Jeremy Carroll on 2004-03-16 (www-archive@w3.org from March 2004)

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2004 11:41:15 +0100
To: "Pat Hayes" <phayes@ihmc.us>, "Jeremy Carroll" <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Cc: <www-archive@w3.org>
Message-ID: <BHEGLCKMOHGLGNOKPGHDIENFCCAA.jjc@hpl.hp.com>

> I(n) = GN(n) for n in the set of graph-reference names; and
> for all n such that <I(n), agent> in IEXT(I(rdfg:assertedBy)),
> I(GN(n)) = true .
>
>

I am very dubious about the above - the doubt is about trying to add special
conditions for IEXT(I(rdfg:assertedBy)).

In my view, we should regard assertedBy as a *social* act not a *logical*
act. Thus an assertedBy statement is true if and only if the object of the
statement is an agent, and the subject of the statement is a graph and the
agent did indeed aassert the graph. Whether the graph is true or not does
not impact the truth of the assertedBy statement.

However a hasSignature statement can be given a formal meaning grounded in
society.

Thus I would suggest the formal aspects are limited:
1) how graph naming fits
2) digital sigs

and other things that do not presuppose that all authorities agree with one
another.

Jeremy

Received on Tuesday, 16 March 2004 05:41:47 UTC