Re: Paradox and Contexts

At 03:29 PM 12/8/00 +0100, Pierre-Antoine CHAMPIN wrote:
>Graham Klyne wrote:
> > >That is a question I had :
> > >which context does the "linking" statement belong to ?
> >
> > I think they may "belong to" any surrounding context in which the original
> > context is held to apply.
> > (...)
> > My proposals use the 'asserts' property applied between contexts to achieve
> > the effect of constructing a sequence of enclosing contexts (in a less
> > general fashion than McCarthy/Guha) for a given statement.  This suggests
> > to me that in the above sequence, the assertion ist(C2,S2) is a statement
> > that "belongs to" C1:
> >    ist(C1,ist(C2,S2))
>That is what my guess was.
> > (...) Another answer to your
> > question might be that the 'asserts' statements do not (necessarily) belong
> > to any of the contexts referenced in the corresponding RDF graph, but
> > belong to some implied context of discourse (a meta-context?).
> >
>Which is not very different from the previous answer.
>In the first answer, you just assume you coud always "step back" from the 
>context of the discourse and name it, which is exactly what you would do 
>in natural language...

Since you put it that way... yes!  I guess the question then becomes:  how 
far does one step back?  To which the plausible answers seem to be "one 
step" or "all the way".


Graham Klyne

Received on Sunday, 10 December 2000 10:19:49 UTC