[Top] [All Lists]

RE: [ontac-forum] Neutrality Principle

To: ONTAC-WG General Discussion <ontac-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: "Smith, Barry" <phismith@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2005 16:05:04 +0100
Message-id: <>
At 02:22 PM 11/28/2005, you wrote:
>This is the way I have started to approach context; Contextual statements
>can be made, for example, OWL-Full by allowing statements about statements.
>Given a class of context and an instance "car" we would have statements
>about "steering wheel".  "steering wheel" and associated axioms are "in the
>context of" "car" (none exclusively).  The same relation would hold for
>statements in the context of "Cyc" (Or some Cyc microtheory).  A computation
>done outside of the context of Cyc would then not include those statements.
>In the problems I was facing in merging forms of expression for
>architectures as well as for expressing the often conflicting architectures
>them selves (and reasoning about them), context seems necessary.  It also
>seems necessary for extremely common concepts.    (01)

For example?    (02)

>  It would also seem a way to
>get around the inevitable "single truth" conflicts and arguments that arise
>when all things are absolutely true all the time.    (03)

My suspicion is that it is a too easy way (analogous to the 
teenager's cry "Well, it's true for ME").    (04)

BS     (05)

Message Archives: http://colab.cim3.net/forum/ontac-forum/
To Post: mailto:ontac-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Shared Files: http://colab.cim3.net/file/work/SICoP/ontac/
Community Wiki: 
http://colab.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?SICoP/OntologyTaxonomyCoordinatingWG    (06)
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>