- From: Seth Russell <seth@robustai.net>
- Date: Fri, 05 Jan 2001 10:01:11 -0800
- To: Graham Klyne <GK@Dial.pipex.com>
- CC: RDF-IG <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
Graham Klyne wrote: > Stating: > The expression of an RDF statement [or set of statements] > in some context of discourse that is taken to be an assertion > of the truth of the statement[s] in that context. Well as Pierre observed: [every statement, isa, stating] and [every stating, isa, statement]. Nevertheless we should be able to avoid infinite regress by understanding that a statement is an ~ideal~ thing just like a perfect circle ... it exists nowhere in the real world. In the real world we have only statings. To state an "isa" relationship (as I did above) between a real thing and an ideal thing may end up being a category error. I believe CYC got around this by inventing a new property "genels". But I have a bone to pick with your use of the word "truth" in the definition. I may aggregate a bunch of statements and publish them ... when I do that, I am making no assertion as to their truth or even their mutual consistency ... I might only be saying that I find them usefully viewed together. To get around this quibble, I have been toying with a different definition of context: Context: A context is a collection of statements that are connected from the point of view of a running process. So, were we to decide not to have a strong commitment to any particular epistemology, your definition might become: Stating: The expression of an RDF statement [or set of statements] in some context of discourse. Seth Russell Has a RDF parser running on a win32 computer, thanks to Jason Diamond !
Received on Friday, 5 January 2001 12:55:31 UTC