Re: Interpretation of Relations
From: Joe Thurbon <usenet_at_thurbon.com>
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2007 10:15:39 GMT
Message-ID: <fT0sh.3250$u8.1570_at_news-server.bigpond.net.au>
> If you really don't know the colour of Joe's hair. Joe's
> hair color may be Red, Blond, Brown, White, Black, etc.
> There are many possibilities including Red or Blond. You can't say
> definitly "NOT Joes hair is Red" and/or "NOT Joes hair is Blond".
>
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2007 10:15:39 GMT
Message-ID: <fT0sh.3250$u8.1570_at_news-server.bigpond.net.au>
Tonkuma wrote:
> Joe Thurbon wrote:
>> indicates that I don't know the colour of Joe's hair. It really means >> >> NOT Joes hair is Red >> NOT Joes hair is Blond >> >> Is this right? If so, it leads me to a question about modelling missing >> information. (And a lot of other questions, too). If not, is there a >> simple thing that I've missed? >>
> If you really don't know the colour of Joe's hair. Joe's
> hair color may be Red, Blond, Brown, White, Black, etc.
> There are many possibilities including Red or Blond. You can't say
> definitly "NOT Joes hair is Red" and/or "NOT Joes hair is Blond".
>
As far as I understand it "Joes hair is Brown" is not even a valid statement in my domain.
Since the Colour domain contains only Red and Blond, and I've not made either assertion {Joe Blonde} nor {Joe, Red}, the CWA means that I've effectively "asserted" the negation of both.
Cheers,
Joe
Received on Fri Jan 19 2007 - 11:15:39 CET