On 7/11/2012 3:13 PM, Pat Hayes wrote:
> They are not context *logics*. There is no provision in CL
> for the referent of any name to vary with contexts. (01)
What?!?!?!? (02)
Where did you get requirement? (03)
For example, many logicians recommend that proper names in
natural languages be mapped to monadic relations in logic
rather than individual constants. (04)
The name Aristotle, for example, would be true of the ancient
philosopher, and it would also be true of the second husband
of Jackie Bouvier. (05)
If you want a theory in which names can vary with contexts,
then you can map each name in any NL to a dyadic relation
instead of a monadic relation. The relation Aristotle(X,c),
for example, would be true iff the individual X had the
word 'Aristotle' as name in context c. (06)
> One could of course do whatever one chooses, but if the context
> is supposed to modify or help determine what URIs refer to, then
> treating a graph as such a context is explicitly prohibited by
> the RDF specification documents. So this would not be legal,
> conformant, RDF. (07)
The conventions of RDF, OWL, and URIs are totally independent
of this discussion. Any theory of contexts proposed by any
philosopher or linguist could be mapped to IKL in one way or
another. (08)
But the notations of RDF and OWL are far less expressive. I couldn't
imagine anyone using them to reason about context logic. Perhaps
one might represent the final conclusion of some deduction in RDF,
but that doesn't impose any requirements on RDF. (09)
John (010)
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Config Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
To join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J (011)
|