- From: Frank V. Castellucci <frankc@colconsulting.com>
- Date: Wed, 08 Nov 2000 13:37:43 -0500
- To: Tom Van Eetvelde <tom.van_eetvelde@alcatel.be>
- CC: RDF interest group <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
Tom, The only way to solve the context problem, IMHO, is with conceptual graphs (or at least the ability to reasoning with type hierarchies). And, heh, I was in a rush to get out the door and was just trying to capture the notion, if no-one objected I could post a graphic, or can put a page up when I get back to the homestead to clarify what I meant. Sorry, Frank V. Castellucci Tom Van Eetvelde wrote: > Hello Frank, > > I do not quite catch what you are hinting at. Do you mean that the 'context' problem can easily be solved > via Conceptual Graphs? I also cannot interpret your model. Maybe I am not familiar with the way > conceptual graphs are written down or maybe your markup got lost in the email traversal process. > > Greetings, > > Tom. > > "Frank V. Castellucci" wrote: > > > Thats the interesting "problem" of semantics implied via the conceptual > > graphs: > > > > I could model > > > > Car > > have colors > > Big Car > > Small Car > > > > Company > > FordCompany > > FordCars > > FordEscort isA Small Car > > colors = {Red, White, Blue,etc} > > > > Or > > > > Car > > have colors > > Big Car > > Small Car > > FordEscort isA FordCars > > > > Company > > FordCompany > > FordCars > > > > or probably a few other ways. > > > > In the large, the conceptualization which enforce the semantics for > > reasoning will have to whistle approximate tunes. > > > > BTW: the colors enumeration specializes colors to restrict instances to > > just "pick" from one of those, and of course the logic to enforce it. > > > > -- > > Frank V. Castellucci
Received on Wednesday, 8 November 2000 13:36:39 UTC