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
Subscribe/Unsubscribe/Config:
http://colab.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontac-forum/
Shared Files: http://colab.cim3.net/file/work/SICoP/ontac/
Community Wiki:
http://colab.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?SICoP/OntologyTaxonomyCoordinatingWG (06)
|