Adam, (01)
Thanks. I am willing to accept this for now ... and to look forward to
seeing how this is implemented in our UBL formalization and in our use
cases. (02)
Appreciate the explanation. (03)
-ppy
-- (04)
Adam Pease wrote Mon, 23 Feb 2004 16:49:45 -0800: (05)
> Peter,
> There are many ways of dealing in a logical system with what lay
> people call context. The most common is simply to embody that context
> directly as knowledge in a knowledge base file. That explicit knowledge
> is then the context of reasoning. We'll be defining terms with axioms
> that express their full meaning in context. (06)
> Part of the problem with talking about context is that it's a very
> vague and general notion. One is no more required to have an explicit
> notion of context in a knowledge base than one is required to have, for
> example, a notion of "relevance", or "quality". A knowledge base can
> have context, relevance and quality without having such notions as
> defined terms. If we go about working at a concrete level with orders
> and invoices, this issue won't come up unless it's a research interest
> independent of our actual practical enterprise.
>
> Adam (07)
> At 03:33 PM 2/23/2004 -0800, Peter Yim wrote:
>
>> Fair, Adam.
>>
>> I am curious, then, how would/should we be handling context in or
>> UBL-ontology, or, more precisely, in building an ontology for the
>> business domain (as "context" is an integral part of 'real' business)
>> -- we can't simply say we won't deal with it when we can't logically
>> represent it, can we?
>>
>> -ppy
>> -- (08)
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Subscribe/Unsubscribe/Config:
http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (09)
|