Abstract
In this paper, an “objective” conception of contexts based loosely upon situation theory is developed and formalized. Unlike “subjective” conceptions, which take contexts to be something like sets of beliefs, contexts on the objective conception are taken to be complex, structured pieces of the world that (in general) contain individuals, other contexts, and propositions about them. An extended first-order language for this account is developed. The language contains complex terms for propositions, and the standard predicate ‘ist’ that expresses the relation that holds between a context and a proposition just in case the latter is true in the former. The logic for the objective conception features a “global” classical predicate calculus, a “local” logic for reasoning within contexts, and axioms for propositions. The specter of paradox is banished from the logic by allowing ‘ist’ to be nonbivalent in problematic cases: it is not in general the case, for any context c and proposition p, that either ist(c,p) or ist(c, ¬ p). An important representational capability of the logic is illustrated by proving an appropriately modified version of an illustrative theorem from McCarthy's classic Blocks World example.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Adams, R. (1981), ‘Actualism and Thisness’, Synthese 49, 3–41.
Akman, V. and Surav, M. (1996), ‘Steps toward Formalizing Context’, AI Magazine 17(3), 55–72.
Akman, V. and Surav, M. (1996), ‘The Use of Situation Theory in ContextModeling’, Computational Intelligence 12(4), 427–438.
Antonelli, A. (1994), ‘The Complexity of Revision’, Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic 35, 67–72.
Barwise, J. (1989), The Situation in Logic, CSLI Lecture Notes, Number 17, Stanford, California: CSLI Publications.
Barwise, J. and Perry, J. (1986), Situations and Attitudes, Cambridge, Massachusetts: Bradford Books/MIT Press.
Barwise, J. and Seligman, J. (1997). ‘Information Flow: The Logic of Distributed Systems’, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bealer, G. (1982), Quality and Concept, Oxford: Clarendon Press. 55
Bealer, C., and U. Mönnich (1989), ‘Property Theories’, in D. Gabbay and F. Guenthner (eds.), Handbook of Philosophical Logic, vol. 4, Dordrecht: D. Reidel.
Borgida, A., Brachman, R., McGuinness, D, and Resnick, L. (1989), ‘CLASSIC: A Structural Data Model for Objects’, in Proceedings of the 1989 ACM SIGMOD International Conference on Management of Data, 59–67.
Buvač, S. (1994), ‘Quantificational Logic of Context’, in Proceedings of the 13th National Conference on Artificial Intelligence.
Buvač, S., V. Buvač, and I. Mason (1995), ‘Metamathematics of Context’, Fundamenta Informaticae 23(3), 263–301.
Chierchia, G., Partee, B. and Turner, R. (eds.) (1989), Properties, Types, and Meaning, Volume I, Foundational Issues, Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Chierchia G. and Turner, R. (1988), ‘Semantics and Property Theory’, Linguistics and Philosophy 11, 261–302.
Devlin, K. (1991), Logic and Information, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Dowty, D., Wall, R., and Peters, S.. (1981), Introduction to Montague Semantics, Dordrecht: D. Reidel Publishing Company.
Enderton, H. (1972), A Mathematical Introduction to Logic, New York: Academic Press.
Fox, M. S., and Grüninger, M. (1994), ‘Ontologies for Enterprise Integration’, in Proceedings of the 2nd Conference on Cooperative Information Systems
Giunchiglia, F. (1993), ‘Contextual Reasoning’, Epistemologia 16, 345–364.
Gruber, T.R. (1995), ‘Toward Principles for the Design of Ontologies Used for Knowledge Sharing’, International Journal of Human and Computer Studies 43(5/6), 907–928.
Guarino, N. (1995), ‘Formal Ontology, Conceptual Analysis and Knowledge Representation’, International Journal of Human and Computer Studies 43(5/6), 625–640.
Guarino, N. (ed.) (1998), Formal Ontology in Information Systems: Proceedings of the 1st International Conference, Amsterdam: IOS Press.
Gupta, A. (1982), ‘Truth and Paradox’, Journal of Philosophical Logic 11, 1–60.
Herzberger, H. (1982), ‘Notes on Naive Semantics’, Journal of Philosophical Logic 11, 61–102.
Kremer, P. (1993), ‘The Gupta-Belnap systems S# and S* are not Axiomatisable’, Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic 34, 583–596.
Kripke, 5. (1972), Naming and Necessity, Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.
Kripke, S. (1975), ‘Outline of a Theory of Truth’, The Journal of Philosophy 72, 690–716.
Lewis, D. (1986), On the Plurality of Worlds, Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
McCarthy, J. (1979), ‘First-order Theories of Individual Concepts and Propositions’, in Michie, D. (ed.) Machine Intelligence, Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
McCarthy, J. (1987), ‘Generality in Artificial Intelligence’, Communications of the ACM 30(12), 1030–1035.
McCarthy, J. (1993), ‘Notes on Formalizing Context’, in Proceedings of the Thirteenth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence.
McCarthy, J., and Buvač, S. (1998), ‘Formalizing Context (Expanded Notes)’, in Aliseda A., R. van Glabeek, and D. Westersthhl (eds), Computing Natural Language, CSLI Lecture Notes, vol. 81, Stanford University: CSLI Publications.
MacGregor, M. (1991), ‘Using a Description Classifier to Enhance Deductive Inference’, Proceedings of the Seventh IEEE Conference on AI Applications, 141–147.
Menzel, C. (1990), ‘Actualism, Ontological Commitment, and Possible World Semantics’, Synthese 85, 355–389.
Menzel, C. (1991), ‘The True Modal Logic’, Journal of Philosophical Logic 20, 331–374.
Menzel, C. (1993), ‘Singular Propositions and Modal Logic’, Philosophical Topics 21, 113–148.
Menzel, C. (1997), ‘Modeling Method Ontologies: A Foundation for Enterprise Model Integration’, in Grüninger, M. and Farquhar, A. (eds.), Ontological Engineering: Papers from the 1997 AAAI Spring Symposium, Menlo Park: AAAI Press, Technical Report SS–97–06, 73–83 56
Menzel, C., and Mayer, R. (1998), ‘The IDEF Family of Languages’, in Bernus, P. Mertins, K., and Schmidt, G. (eds.), Handbook on Architectures for Information Systems, New York: Springer-Verlag.
Menzel, C. Mayer, R., and Sanders, L. (1993), ‘Representation, Information Flow, and Model Integration’, in Petrie (1993), 131–141.
Neches, R., Fikes, R., Finin, T., Gruber, T., Patil, R., Senator, T., and Swartout, W.R. (1991), ‘Enabling Technology for Knowledge Sharing’, AI Magazine 12(3), 36–56.
Petrie, A. C. (ed.) (1993), Enterprise Model Integration: Proceedings of the First International Conference, Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.
Plantinga, A. (1983), ‘On Existentialism’, Philosophical Studies 44, 1–20.
Prior, A.N. (1957), Time and Modality, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Quine, W.V.O. (1981), ‘On the Individuation of Attributes’, reprinted in Theories and Things, Cambridge, Massachusetts.: Harvard University Press, 100–112.
Salmon, N. (1986), Frege's Puzzle, Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press/Bradford Books.
Shapiro, S. (1991), Foundations without Foundationalism: A Case for Second-order Logic, Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Soames, S. (1987), ‘Direct Reference, Propositional Attitudes, and Semantic Content’, Philosophical Topics 15, 47–87.
Turner, R. (1987), ‘A Theory of Properties,’ Journal of Symbolic Logic 52, 455–472.
Zalta, E. (1988), Intensional Logic and the Metaphysics of Intentionality, Cambridge,Massachusetts: MIT Press/Bradford Books.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Menzel, C. The Objective Conception of Context and Its Logic. Minds and Machines 9, 29–56 (1999). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008390129138
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008390129138