RE: Contexts (not again!)

At 03:47 PM 11/14/02 +0100, Danny Ayers wrote:

>Aha! Thanks Graham, I thought my post had taken on a "dark" nature itself...
>
> >I think the "dark triples" approach fizzled out.  My take is that
> >we're not
> >ready to standardize context mechanisms yet, but  still have hopes of
> >prototyping my ideas in this area, which aren't vastly different from what
> >I think you're describing.  I think that reification, or a
> >variation of it,
> >can be used (in a prototype implementation) to encode the triples that
> >aren't asserted.
>
>Right, ok. I'm no logician, but I do suspect that some possibilities in this
>area could easily look good on paper but fail in practice, so I'm glad to
>see the word 'implementation' there. So I look forward to seeing your
>prototypes ;-)

So do I ;-)   (too many things to do!)

> >In the longer run, a standard solution may call for something more
> >"hard-wired", with scope for optimization.  I think this might come about
> >without invalidating/isolating the
> >prototype approaches.
>
>Ah, that's rather a more optimistic response than I imagined, I feel happier
>about trying what I suggested.

Don't take that as a promise!  I do think hat there's sometimes more scope 
for making different approaches work together than folks sometimes seem to 
think.  When we've done that and better understand the issues, then we're 
better placed to standardize the One True Way.

#g


-------------------
Graham Klyne
<GK@NineByNine.org>

Received on Thursday, 14 November 2002 11:22:47 UTC