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

[Patrick Durusau]

Lars,

Lars Marius Garshol wrote:

>
> * 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?
>
I think the question Alexander is asking is how to handle an encounter 
with a topic map that contains (4) and he wishes to say that he thinks 
it is false.

Granted that in any particular topic map you could voluntarily restrict 
yourself by some notion of "truth" but the more difficult issue handling 
the merging of topic maps with differing notions of which assertions are 
true.

One cannot deny that they were made by one or more authors of the topic 
maps that are merged, at least without some editing process that censors 
the input.

Assuming that all initial input is to be preserved (I would find silent 
editing troubling on intellectual integrity grounds), then there should 
be a means to assert that some assertions in the topic map are, at least 
in the opinion of one or more authors, false.

As you know, the Topic Maps Reference Model (TMRM) does not define any 
legends (rules for interpretation), leaving that task for the author. My 
response would be that a "truth-of" assertion be defined where assertion 
(4) is a role player where an author (also a role player), in their 
respective roles, asserts the assertion is false. If the truthfulness of 
an assertion cannot be treated as a subject, it would be a serious 
deficiency of the paradigm.

After all, if I were to merge a topic map with one for the New York 
Times, I am likely to encounter any number of assertions that are in my 
view "false" but none the less in the NYT topic map. Is my only choice 
to edit them out of the resulting topic map? However attractive that 
sounds some days, ;-), I don't think that is really an option.

Hope you are having a great day!

Patrick

-- 
Patrick Durusau
Patrick at Durusau.net
Chair, V1 - Text Processing: Office and Publishing Systems Interface
Co-Editor, ISO 13250, Topic Maps -- Reference Model
Member, Text Encoding Initiative Board of Directors, 2003-2005

Topic Maps: Human, not artificial, intelligence at work!