Re: WWW/Internet 2009: 2nd CFP until 21 September x
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2009 13:09:04 GMT
"Mr. Scott" <do_not_reply_at_noone.com> wrote in message
> Sorry for the delay in responding. It's been a busy week.
> "Walter Mitty" <wamitty_at_verizon.net> wrote in message
> I think it's about what should be considered information and what
> shouldn't. The closed world assumption effectively denies every valid
> atomic formula that can't be derived from what has explicitly been stated,
> so it would be redundant to assert negative information. An inapplicable
> null states that there is not supposed to be a value in a specific role.
> An I-don't-have-a-clue null essentially states that it doesn't matter
> whether there is a value in a specific role. In neither instance does the
> fact being asserted depend on there being a value in that specific role,
> but where there is an applicable null, the fact being asserted does depend
> on there being a value, even if it isn't clear which one. This is why I
> think that only applicable nulls convey information that can't otherwise
> be derived from what has explicitly been stated.
>> So what does a null say about the real world? Nothing.
> An applicable null indicates that there is supposed to be a value in a
> specific role drawn from a particular domain. That's quite a bit more
> than nothing.
You are confusing what the null indicates with what the cell containing the null indicates.
The null indicates that there is no data in the cell. That is all. It is
the cell that might
indicate by its presence that there is supposed to be data there. Received on Tue Aug 25 2009 - 15:09:04 CEST