[topicmapmail] How to best model relations with mode (assertive, modal, intention, negation) with topic maps?

[Dmitry]

I think ability to represent truth value of assertions explicitly is 
important for modeling using topic maps. Scope is not the best way to do this.

I would prefer situation in which  basic TM models (TMRM and TMDM) have a concept of assertion truth
with possible values: false, default false, unknown, default true, true. It is important to have it in a TM core
because TMQL and TMCL have dependencies on this ability.

TMCL defines what is "reasonable" to know about topics of specific type. Explicit truth values help to 
describe how available information about instance is matched against "expectations" defined by TMCL schemas

We use topic maps often in situation with "open world" assumption (as opposite to traditional relational databases).
In these cases explicit management of negative/unknown information becomes important.

Statements such as 'unknown(JohnSmith,has_position)' can be quite important in many TM applications

Explicit truth values will also help to integrate TMs with systems like OpenCyc (http://www.opencyc.org)

Dmitry

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Lars Marius Garshol" <larsga at garshol.priv.no>


> * Alexander Sigel
>>
>> I'd like to model assertions which are only true in the interpretation
>> of a certain mode.
>> (cf. [1, p. 95]: (*1*) assertive (is [default]), (*2*) modal (may be
>> [possible world]), (*3*) intention (is intended or claimed to be),  
>> (*4*)
>> negation (is not)).
>>
>> Examples:
>> (1) fish staircases IS-BENEFICIAL-FOR (*1*) - protection of living
>> marine resources
>> (2) raising the vat IS-INSTRUMENTAL-FOR (*2*) - cut in state deficit
>> (3) killing of cats for experiments IS (*3*) - murder
>> (4) Frankfurt Stock Exchange IS-UNITING-WITH (*4*) - London Stock
>> Exchange
>>
>> (Note: Modes are only statement types (as in linguistic modality),  
>> modal
>> logics is not implied here)
> 
> I'm not sure I understand this. Let me try to go through these one by  
> one to see if I understand what it is you are trying to say in each  
> case.
> 
>  (1) This is just a plain statement of the fact that fish staircases
>      are beneficial for the protection of living marine resources.
> 
>  (2) This statement is qualified, in the sense that the represented
>      fact is not 100% certain.
> 
>  (3) Here the statement is an claim by one group of people that many
>      other groups disagree with.
> 
>  (4) And this is just plain not true.
> 
> Did I get this right? If I did, why do you want to assert (4) at all,  
> if it's known not to be true?