- 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