From: Dan Connolly (connolly@w3.org)
Date: 02/07/01
Jim Hendler wrote: > > At 12:40 PM -0600 2/7/01, Dan Connolly wrote: > > > > > >To have the parsing of one document depend on the > >contents of another conflicts with that goal/principle. > > > >Another way to state this principle is that > >the knowledge contained in two documents, X and Y, > >is always the conjunction of the knowledge in X with > >the knowledge in Y. To allow X to change what Y says > >in some non-monotonic way doesn't seem scalable/workable > >to me. > > > > I absolutely agree with the first of these and completely disagree > with the second, so maybe they're not exactly equivalent... since I > tend to like examples, here's one > > Web page 1 says: X is true > Web page 2 says: X is False > > The parsing of web page 1 or two is not changed by reading the other, > but I don't know a good monotonic way to combine these two without > problem (solution is for me to tag them, or reject them, or something > - but I need to be allowed to recognize conflict) It seems to me that you do know how to combine them monotonically: you take their conjunction. It's pretty clear that when you look at the knowledge from pages 1 and 2 together, you've got a contradiction; but that's not an exception to the rule that KB(page 1 + page 2) = KB(page 1) + KB(page 2). > web page 1 says: 1 is an integer > web page 2 says: 1 is a real > web page 3 says: 1 is not an integer > > are these cases inherentely different? I'm not sure, not at all. -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/ office: tel:+1-913-491-0501 pager: mailto:connolly.pager@w3.org (put return phone number in from/subject)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : 04/02/02 EST