ࡱ;   !#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}~Root Entry  ®`VTextStarWriter 5.0QrpYN@*mE2pD堸?EZQ6w ;Wt 2!=8`s+X#^S_$GZSfxDocumentInfo  Graham Klyne 01gC Graham Klyne c11U Graham Klyne c11)Contexts for Information Modelling in RDF Info 0 Info 1 Info 2 Info 3 01*9C'< TASK,0,1,H-2,0,100,1,4093;3299;100;0;1528;13905;7543;0;0Oh+'08 h t 8@}H@[MU@ QU@>ZZ Graham Klyne Graham Klyne*Contexts for Information Modelling in RDFSWG, A<  #$%&'()*./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDGHK  !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFQRSTU0!'*@XX'a@ StarBats Courier NewTimes New RomanStandardXX!X7' @ td d d xd hd d d d K @d XXX"X,X6X@XJXTX^Xh' @X'@X'@X+'$@X8'&@4X9''@SX'( @ , %, %..$..o#..T"..9!.. ...... .. ..XX!X-X9XEXQX]XiXuXX@'1 5@ 1dddh ddd 7ddd7dddddd6ddd6QdddQldddlddd ddd ddd ddd  ddd XX!X4XGXZXmXXXXXXXA'2J@dddddd d dXXX&X27S;"@XX8S<&@XX9S=(@GXX('@$@{XR'D@XJJ@XDSrr6UP'Times New Roman'd $' '(. . p. @ . . . . . P. . . !. $. `'. 0*. -. /. 2. p5. @8. ;. =. @. 6')*6>n2` 6 Internet link Internet link@!''Visited Internet LinkVisited Internet Link@!''Footnote SymbolFootnote Symbol Definition Definition@ ''9Bullet SymbolsBullet Symbols''EmphasisEmphasis@ '2 Source Text Source Text@'5CitationCitation@ '3Numbering SymbolsNumbering SymbolsStrong EmphasisStrong Emphasis@'4VariableVariable@ '8Endnote SymbolEndnote Symbol FrameFrame;7S<8S=9S>> GraphicsGraphics;7S<8S=9S>> OLEOLE;7S<8S=9S>> StandardStandard@FooterStandardFooter('HeaderStandardHeader('HeadingStandard Text body@''2A'DR'  Text bodyStandard Text body@&8''9'2A'33 Heading 1Heading Text body@'' Horizontal LineStandard Text body'2A'@('0Table Contents Text bodyTable Contents@ Table HeadingTable Contents Table Heading'$+'SenderStandardSender ' Heading 2Heading Text body@''  Heading 3Heading Text body@'33  Heading 4Heading Text body@''  Heading 5Heading Text body'' Heading 6Heading Text body''Text body.hanging-indent Text bodyText body.hanging-indent1@'Text body.text-body-indent Text bodyText body.text-body-indent1@' List ContentsStandard List Contents1@'0 List HeadingStandard List Contents1@'0Preformatted TextStandardPreformatted Text@''2A'0 Heading 7Heading Text body'' Heading 8Heading Text body'' Heading 9Heading Text body'' Heading 10Heading Text body'' IndexStandardIndex@JJ Contents 1Index Contents 1@('1@' Contents 2Index Contents 2@('1@' Contents 3Index Contents 3@('1@' Contents 4Index Contents 4@('1@' Contents 5Index Contents 5('1@' Contents 6Index Contents 6('1@' Contents 7Index Contents 7('1@'  Contents 8Index Contents 8('1@'  Contents 9Index Contents 9(' 1@'  Contents 10Index Contents 10(' 1@'  Contents HeadingHeadingContents Heading@' '1@'JJ TitleHeadingSubtitle@''$+'(SubtitleHeading Text body' '$+'(Text body blank before Text body Text body2A'R fH@8p\AyK. t = =  I  W @r5oJ+?;_m"89\7Zkl/+HbL-(|0)Isg }nuϱکҳE R gmuLh@F&= \Gu+Єtq3nNSW5HDR.c11U! Internet linkVisited Internet LinkFootnote Symbol9 DefinitionBullet Symbols2Emphasis5 Source Text3CitationNumbering Symbols4Strong Emphasis8Variable Endnote Symbol 411838161 411838211 411838212 411838213 411838214 411838271 411838272 411838273 411838274 411838321 411838381 411838431 411838432 411838491 411838492 372953501 412517321Outline0 #R   n+.StarBats n+.StarBats n+.StarBatsI n+.StarBats n+.StarBats n+.StarBats n+.StarBatsU n+.StarBats n+.StarBats n+.StarBats R   n+.StarBats n+.StarBats n+.StarBatsI n+.StarBats n+.StarBats n+.StarBats n+.StarBatsU n+.StarBats n+.StarBats n+.StarBats Rq  n#.n#.n#.In#. n#. n#.n#.Un#.n#.n#.R  n+.StarBats n+.StarBats n+.StarBatsI n+.StarBats n+.StarBats n+.StarBats n+.StarBatsU n+.StarBats n+.StarBats n+.StarBats R  n+.StarBats n+.StarBats n+.StarBatsI n+.StarBats n+.StarBats n+.StarBats n+.StarBatsU n+.StarBats n+.StarBats n+.StarBats R  n+.StarBats n+.StarBats n+.StarBatsI n+.StarBats n+.StarBats n+.StarBats n+.StarBatsU n+.StarBats n+.StarBats n+.StarBats R  n+.StarBats n+.StarBats n+.StarBatsI n+.StarBats n+.StarBats n+.StarBats n+.StarBatsU n+.StarBats n+.StarBats n+.StarBats R  n+.StarBats n+.StarBats n+.StarBatsI n+.StarBats n+.StarBats n+.StarBats n+.StarBatsU n+.StarBats n+.StarBats n+.StarBats R  n+.StarBats n+.StarBats n+.StarBatsI n+.StarBats n+.StarBats n+.StarBats n+.StarBatsU n+.StarBats n+.StarBats n+.StarBats Rq  n#.n#.n#.In#. n#. n#.n#.Un#.n#.n#.R  n+.StarBats n+.StarBats n+.StarBatsI n+.StarBats n+.StarBats n+.StarBats n+.StarBatsU n+.StarBats n+.StarBats n+.StarBats R  n+.StarBats n+.StarBats n+.StarBatsI n+.StarBats n+.StarBats n+.StarBats n+.StarBatsU n+.StarBats n+.StarBats n+.StarBats R  n+.StarBats n+.StarBats n+.StarBatsI n+.StarBats n+.StarBats n+.StarBats n+.StarBatsU n+.StarBats n+.StarBats n+.StarBats Rq  n#.n#.n#.In#. n#. n#.n#.Un#.n#.n#.R  n+.StarBats n+.StarBats n+.StarBatsI n+.StarBats n+.StarBats n+.StarBats n+.StarBatsU n+.StarBats n+.StarBats n+.StarBats Rq  n#.n#.6n#.Qn#.ln#.n#.n#.n#.n#. n#. Rp  n#. n#. /n#. Cn" Wn#. kn#. n#. n#. n#. n#. Z,l9RȐ2 _:Q)љFL~ dAhk̶ iFECw#~I &v^Q҆KJ.>vXC?}<%6nY01׳Kģɕe-H>DcItwβ XMf?(EH|b#^b%C޴`GxKmӊ\O dc0e1.msthٷ (O3i&6LNދ"Q#CF.׽WټFA?: 7HVF Fe/` {U0h1Έ@3>S }^llέR=;9SW5HDR.c11U!l Frameformat ZeichenformatTextformatvorlageStandardFooterHeader Heading Text body  Heading 10Horizontal LineTable Contents Table HeadingSender  Heading 2  Heading 3  Heading 4 Heading 5 Heading 6Text body.hanging-indentText body.text-body-indent0 List Contents0 List Heading0Preformatted Text Heading 7 Heading 8 Heading 9 Heading 10 Index Contents 1 Contents 2 Contents 3 Contents 4 Contents 5 Contents 6 Contents 7 Contents 8 Contents 9 Contents 10 Contents Heading(Title(SubtitleText body blank before Internet linkVisited Internet LinkFootnote Symbol9 DefinitionBullet Symbols2Emphasis5 Source Text3CitationNumbering Symbols4Strong Emphasis8Variable Endnote Symbol Frame Graphics OLERoot 58 Table1 59 Table2 60 Table3 61 Table4 62 Table5 63 Table38 64 Table39 65 Table6 66 Table7 67 Table8 68 Table9 69 Table10 70 Table11 71 Table12 72 Table13 73 Table14 74 Table15 75 Table33 76 Table35 77 Table34 78 Table16 79 Table17 80 Table36 81 Table18 82 Table19 83 Table20 84 Table21 85 Table37 86 Table22 87 Table23 88 Table24 89 Table25 90 Table26 91 Table27 92 Table28 93 Table29 94 Table30 95 Table31 96 Table32 97 98 99 100 101StandardHTMLEndnote  Illustration Table TextDrawingY h.Y i.Y j.Y k.q'& GeneralGeneraldNC#,##0.00#,##0.00SystemNC #,##0.00 CCC#,##0.00 CCCNC$#,##0.--;[RED]($#,##0.--) $#,##0.--($#,##0.--)REDNC$ MM/DD/YYYYMM/DD/YYYY def/SystemNC%MM/DD/YYMM/DD/YY def/SystemNC&NNNNMMMM DD, YYYYNNNNMMMM  DD, YYYYSystemNC' MMM D, YYMMM D, YY def/SystemNC. [HH]:MM:SS.00 [HH ]:MM:SS .00NC3MM/DD/YYYY HH:MM:SS MM/DD/YYYY HH :MM:SS  NCK MMM D, YYYYMMM D, YYYY def/SystemNCL MMMM D, YYYYMMMM  D, YYYY def/SystemNCM NN, MMM D, YYNN, MMM D, YY def/SystemNCNNN, MMMM D, YYYYNN, MMMM  D, YYYY def/SystemNCONNNNMMMM D, YYYYNNNNMMMM  D, YYYY def/SystemNCP D. MMM. YYYYD. MMM. YYYYDIN 5008 (EN 28601)NCQ D. MMMM YYYYD. MMMM  YYYYDIN 5008 (EN 28601)NCRMM-DDMM-DDDIN 5008 (EN 28601)NCSYY-MM-DDYY-MM-DDDIN 5008 (EN 28601)NCT YYYY-MM-DDYYYY-MM-DDDIN 5008 (EN 28601)NCUWWWWNCStandardStandarddNC#.##0,00#.##0,00SystemNC #.##0,00 CCC#.##0,00 CCCNC#.##0,-- DM;[ROT]-#.##0,-- DM #.##0,-- DM-#.##0,-- DMROTNC TT.MM.JJJJTT.MM.JJJJ def/SystemNCTT.MM.JJTT.MM.JJ def/SystemNCNNNNT. MMMM JJJJNNNNT. MMMM  JJJJSystemNC T. MMM JJT. MMM JJ def/SystemNC [HH]:MM:SS,00 [HH ]:MM:SS ,00NCTT.MM.JJJJ HH:MM:SS TT.MM.JJJJ HH :MM:SS  NC T. MMM JJJJT. MMM JJJJ def/SystemNC T. MMMM JJJJT. MMMM  JJJJ def/SystemNC NN, T. MMM JJNN, T. MMM JJ def/SystemNCNN, T. MMMM JJJJNN, T. MMMM  JJJJ def/SystemNCNNNNT. MMMM JJJJNNNNT. MMMM  JJJJ def/SystemNC T. MMM. JJJJT. MMM. JJJJDIN 5008 (EN 28601)NC T. MMMM JJJJT. MMMM  JJJJDIN 5008 (EN 28601)NCMM-TTMM-TTDIN 5008 (EN 28601)NCJJ-MM-TTJJ-MM-TTDIN 5008 (EN 28601)NC JJJJ-MM-TTJJJJ-MM-TTDIN 5008 (EN 28601)NCWWWWNC' GeneralGeneraldNC' #,###.00#,###.00SystemNC('  #,##0.00 CCC#,##0.00 CCCNC)' $#,##0.--;[RED]-$#,##0.-- $#,##0.---$#,##0.--REDNC4'  MM/DD/YYYYMM/DD/YYYY def/SystemNC5' MM/DD/YYMM/DD/YY def/SystemNC6' NNNNMMMM DD, YYYYNNNNMMMM  DD, YYYYSystemNC7'  MMM D, YYMMM D, YY def/SystemNC>'  [HH]:MM:SS.00 [HH ]:MM:SS .00NCC' MM/DD/YYYY HH:MM:SS MM/DD/YYYY HH :MM:SS  NC['  MMM D, YYYYMMM D, YYYY def/SystemNC\'  MMMM D, YYYYMMMM  D, YYYY def/SystemNC]'  NN, MMM D, YYNN, MMM D, YY def/SystemNC^' NN, MMMM D, YYYYNN, MMMM  D, YYYY def/SystemNC_' NNNNMMMM D, YYYYNNNNMMMM  D, YYYY def/SystemNC`'  D. MMM. YYYYD. MMM. YYYYDIN 5008 (EN 28601)NCa'  D. MMMM YYYYD. MMMM  YYYYDIN 5008 (EN 28601)NCb' MM-DDMM-DDDIN 5008 (EN 28601)NCc' YY-MM-DDYY-MM-DDDIN 5008 (EN 28601)NCd'  YYYY-MM-DDYYYY-MM-DDDIN 5008 (EN 28601)NCe' WWWWNCBoeqeoePp ee2$99 SAAP.AAPndnddnAPndndSAAP.AAPndnddnAPndndpj ff2$99 SAP.AAPdddAPddAPr CpyDescSAP.APdddAPddAuPNlEX#f3:S(APdAPLZBfSA Pt@f-S$APA P<N|Ts S(ATimesAd A?0)Contexts for Information Modelling in RDFt@f-S$AP A P<N\TS S(ATimesAd A0$xK<@LdtWbNPTG S(ATimesAd A0tcbN\TS S(ATimesAd A0$9'xK<@T A Pr CpyDescSAP.APdddAP ddAPNzTq Page from S/APddAd A @A0A0 SAAP.AAPdddAPddp gg2$SAAP.AAPndnddnAPndndSAAP.AAPndnddnAPndndZ5N1n7qu,?䅖ixU3<ߤ.R9sc/} ÚrA & !"#$%u/x+Table of Contents1Table of Contents PP#D D D P#D D D P#D D D P#D D D P#D D D P#D D D P#D D D P#D D D P# D D D P# D D D  & !"#$%ds4dS)A  PAPd7s4aS)A  PAPdaB[1]B[2]B[3]B[4]B[5]B[6]B[7]B[8]6NTF=TA'&Contexts for RDF Information ModellingSA PfTW%Graham Klyne Content Technologies LtdS'APpdddpA @TThis memo describes some experimental work that is being undertaken with the goal of simplifying the application of RDF to a number of information modelling problems, particularly involving relationships between physical-world objects and trust modelling. It is our goal that, by using contexts, a degree of modularity can be introduced that will ease the construction of RDF information models.S'APdddA @TNCreated: 31 August 2000 Revised: 23 November 2000 Status: draft for discussionS1APpdddpA  A @T<S1APpdddpA PA @ITable of Contents1s4bS)A  PAPdNITable of Contents1_Heads4bcS)A  PAPdNG(T%&Table of ContentsK T\1. IntroductionSA @A48 #1.1.Introduction|outlineTo1.1 Document conventionsSA @A>8 ##1.1.1.1Documentconventions|outlineT^1.2 TerminologySA @A68 #1.2.1.2Terminology|outlineT_2. About contextsSA @A58 #2.2.Aboutcontexts|outlineT%2.1 Representation of contexts in RDFSA @AH8 %-#2.1.2.1RepresentationofcontextsinRDF|outlineTz2.2 Approach to contexts in RDFSA @AB8 '#2.2.2.2ApproachtocontextsinRDF|outlineTm3. Statements sets in RDFSA @A;8  #3.3.StatementssetsinRDF|outlineT-3.1 A general container for sets of resourcesSA @AN8 -3#3.1.3.1Ageneralcontainerforsetsofresources|outlineTc3.2 Statement setsSA @A88 #3.2.3.2Statementsets|outlineT~!3.3 A notation for statement setsSA @AD8 !)#3.3.3.3Anotationforstatementsets|outlineTs4. RDF elements for contextsSA @A>8 ##4.4.RDFelementsforcontexts|outlineT.4.1 Asserting statements in different contextsSA @AQ8 .6#4.1.4.1Assertingstatementsindifferentcontexts|outlineT%5. Using contexts: logical constructsSA @AG8 %,#5.5.Usingcontexts:logicalconstructs|outlineTr5.1 Contexts as containersSA @A?8 $#5.1.5.1Contextsascontainers|outlineTr5.1.1 A possible approachSA @A@8 %#5.1.1.5.1.1Apossibleapproach|outlineTt5.1.2 A preferred approachSA @AA8 &#5.1.2.5.1.2Apreferredapproach|outlineTr5.2 Contexts as statementsSA @A?8 $#5.2.5.2Contextsasstatements|outlineT'5.2.1 Representing explicit assumptionsSA @AN8 '3#5.2.1.5.2.1Representingexplicitassumptions|outlineTb5.2.1.1 ExampleSA @A:8 #5.2.1.1.5.2.1.1Example|outlineTq5.2.2 Subsuming contextsSA @A@8 %#5.2.2.5.2.2Subsumingcontexts|outlineTb5.2.2.1 ExampleSA @A:8 #5.2.2.1.5.2.2.1Example|outlineT25.2.3 A unifying class for contexts and statementsSA @AU8 2:#5.2.3.5.2.3Aunifyingclassforcontextsandstatements|outlineTb5.2.3.1 ExampleSA @A:8 #5.2.3.1.5.2.3.1Example|outlineTp5.3 Contexts as resourcesSA @A>8 ##5.3.5.3Contextsasresources|outlineTp5.4 Contexts as languagesSA @A>8 ##5.4.5.4Contextsaslanguages|outlineT+5.5 Contexts as frames (local name binding)SA @AM8 +2#5.5.5.5Contextsasframes(localnamebinding)|outlineT"5.6 Relationships between contextsSA @AG8 ",#5.6.5.6Relationshipsbetweencontexts|outlineT~5.6.1 Specialization of contextSA @AF8 +#5.6.1.5.6.1Specializationofcontext|outlineTt5.6.2 Component of contextSA @AA8 &#5.6.2.5.6.2Componentofcontext|outlineTv5.6.3 Projection of contextSA @AB8 '#5.6.3.5.6.3Projectionofcontext|outlineTk5.6.4 Default contextSA @A=8 "#5.6.4.5.6.4Defaultcontext|outlineT'5.6.4.1 An alternative to rdfc:default?SA @AO8 '4#5.6.4.1.5.6.4.1Analternativetordfc:default?|outlineTZ6. ApplicationSA @A38 #6.6.Application|outlineTy7. Conclusions and further workSA @AA8 &#7.7.Conclusionsandfurtherwork|outlineTd8. AcknowledgementsSA @A88 #8.8.Acknowledgements|outlineTX 9. ReferencesSA @A28  #9.9.References|outlineT5Appendix A: Distributing properties over a collectionSA @AV8 5;#10.AppendixA:Distributingpropertiesoveracollection|outlineT~!Appendix B: Enhanced RDF notationSA @AD8 !)#11.AppendixB:EnhancedRDFnotation|outlineT#Appendix C: RDF schema for contextsSA @K #AE8 #*#12.AppendixC:RDFschemaforcontexts|outlineT(1. IntroductionSA PTAs a mechanism for representing information, RDF [1], [2] is very general, but very primitive. It might be viewed as a kind of assembly language for knowledge and metadata representation. There are some metadata applications, such as adding properties to web pages, for which basic RDF is well suited. But there are others, particularly describing detailed relationships between physical-world objects, where one soon becomes lost in a tangle of graph nodes and edges, loosing sight of the overall structure of the information.S.A PA PA PA @A$8 14#[1]_selfA8 69#[2]TvkThe above conclusion was reached when trying to model configuration and interworking options between a number of computer system components. Despite repeated simplifications of the problem, we kept on running out of whiteboard space to contain the RDF graph of our chosen problem. Assembly language programmers soon adopted the notion of subroutine --grouping instructions into separate, understandable, interacting pieces-- to construct programs consisting of very many primitive instructions. It is a thesis of this proposal that the idea of contexts can perform a similar function for information modelling in RDF.TUJWhat are the kinds of problem we hope to address using contexts? Some are:TRepresenting the relationship between statements and documents that contain them; e.g. what is the effect of signing a document on the statements that it may contain?S2APdddA @ 4118381613TTrust modelling; again, modelling the effect of signature, originator, etc. Applying heuristics for establishing levels of trust based on the origin of and/or uses made of information.S2APdddA @ 4118381613TXNested resources; e.g. web pages are resources that may be made up from other resources.S2APdddA @ 4118381613TkModelling the full complexities of real-world relationships; e.g. selecting the right power supply for an electrical device will depend upon many inter-related factors: supply voltage, supply quality, device voltage required, device current required, supply quality required, type of connector, physical space available, noise suppression requirements, etc., etc.S2APdddA @ 4118381613TProviding a framework for expressing statements about which one might reason non-monotonically; e.g. birds can fly, unless the bird in question is a penguin.S2APdddA @ 411838161A8 tz/3T# 1.1 Document conventionsT8We shall use the namespace prefix rdfc: for RDF classes and properties that are used to represent container and context information. RDF classes are given names starting with an upper case letter, RDF properties with lower case.A8 #(0A8#(A8 #(A8#(A8 #'ToGIn describing RDF statements, square brackets are used to denote RDF resources, containing a name for the resource, or quoted strings to describe literal object values. Specific resource identifiers may be replaced by the expected rdf:Type of the resource in angle brackets. Thus, a general RDF statement might be described as:A8 0A8 EGfU;SJAPAP7ddd7APA PLfSA PtfS~APAPAHP<N@T7,[SubjectName] --propertyName--> [ObjectName]T)or:E|fU<SJAPAP7ddd7APA PLfSA PtfS~APAPAHP<NuTl7[] ----> []A8 A8 A8 (,T)uSee also Appendix B: Enhanced RDF notation, and also the further notations introduced in section 3 on Statement sets.AH8  *-#10.Appendix B: Enhanced RDF notation|outlineA8*uA8 *uTNOTE: Explanatory comments like this are not a core elements of this proposal, but are included to provide background rationale about why a particular approach is adopted.SAPdddA8A8 T 1.2 TerminologyTeStatement set: a collection of reified statements, whose container is represented as an RDF resource.A8 -TContext: a statement set, with additional properties capturing certain structural and logical properties associated with contexts, described in this document.A8 -A8 1TLifting rule: any rule that allows us to deduce that truth of some statement in a context from the truth of another statement in a related context.A8 -T2. About contextsTThe idea of contexts was proposed by McCarthy [6], [3], and some theory and applications were developed in some detail in by R. V. Guha in his PhD thesis [4].A8 .1#[6]A8 36#[3]A8 #[4]TYA context is characterized by the fundamental relationship is true in, or ist, where:S$A PA PA PA8 MP0Tv[Statement] --ist--> [Context]SMAPdddAPd dA PA PA PTv?means that [Statement] is true in [Context]. A context may be taken to be some environment within which some statements are held to be true. Thus, to use a statement in some chain of reasoning, one must determine (or assume) that a context that the statement is true in applies to the circumstances of that reasoning.SA PA8 0A8 "+0T9Guha [4] describes a context as defining its own language, in the sense that it establishes a framework of meaningful expressions based on first order logic. For the purposes of modelling with RDF, the first order logic is replaced by the structure of basic RDF assertions, possibly taken together with some specified RDF properties and associated set of rules that define a language and deductive framework for that context. Tim Berners-Lee describes in The Semantic Toolbox [5] one possible form of RDF properties and associated rules to describe first order logic.A8 #[4]A8 A8 #[5]TZOThus, RDF provides the basic vocabulary and grammar for representing assertions associated with contexts, and RDF schema may be used to impose constraints on the way that the vocabulary is used, but rules of logical deduction associated with a context (beyond the minimal rules defined by RDF) need to be established by external means.TAnother key feature of contexts is the idea of lifting rules or lifting axioms: rules to deduce the truth of statements in one context from the truth of statements in some other context. In the absence of applicable lifting axioms, such deductions are not typically valid. I envisage that the topic of lifting between RDF contexts can be approached gradually, through the introduction of specific types of relationship between contexts, rather than adopting a fully generalized theory of lifting.TMcCarthy [3] states that a context is an abstract object. This suggests that one can make assertions about contexts as well as within contexts. He also describes a context as a generalization of a collection of assumptions. These assumptions may concern the vocabulary and language used as well as the statements being assumed; not all such assumptions may be explicitly known. We return later to this idea of context-as-assumptions.A8  #[3]A8 gl/A8 /TMcCarthy [3] points out that, in order to work within a framework of first order logic, we need to reify statements to associate them with contexts. RDF provides a mechanism for reification of statements, but it tends to be cumbersome. For the purpose of discourse, I shall use a notation for RDF in which reification is implicit; see Appendix B: Enhanced RDF notation. (Implementations are, in any case, free to use any appropriate optimizations for their internal representation.).S8A PA PA PA @A @A8  #[3]AA8 Op&#1.10.B. Enhanced RDF notation|outlineT0 %2.1 Representation of contexts in RDFTX5So, what is a context represented in RDF? We can say:SA @A @T)It is a collection of reified statements.SFAPdddA @A @A @ 4118382113T<The collection and the reified statements are RDF resources.SFAPdddA @A @A @ 4118382113T]The statements resources are explicitly related to the collection resource by RDF properties.SFAPdddA @A @A @ 4118382113TgDifferent properties may be used to indicate different relationships between collection and statements.SFAPdddA @A @A @ 4118382113TVContexts may have properties that tell us something about the statements they contain.SFAPdddA @A @A @ 4118382113T?Contexts may be related to other contexts in a variety of ways.SFAPdddA @A @A @ 4118382113T* 2.2 Approach to contexts in RDFTkHIn the remainder of this paper, contexts are approached at three levels:SA @A @T7A collection of reified statements a statement set.SFAPdddA @A @A @ 4118382123TNRDF classes and properties that convey context-specific structural informationSFAPdddA @A @A @ 4118382123T>RDF properties that convey context-specific logical propertiesSFAPdddA @A @A @ 4118382123T$3. Statements sets in RDFTshRDF defines a way to represent collections of statements which suffers from some practical difficulties:TThe rdf:Bag container class and associated containment properties make it diffcult to add new statements to a collection without knowing about all of the statements already belonging to that collection.S2APdddA @ 411838213A8  03TWIt is not possible to represent different containment relations for a single container.S2APdddA @ 4118382133TcThe standard container classes have no way to represent distributive referents within an RDF graph.S2APdddA @ 4118382133T'The standard mechanism for collecting reified statements (bagId attribute) is bound to documents containing RDF statements, and cannot be used for collecting statements that are defined across several documents.S2APdddA @ 411838213A8 :?03TjThe standard mechanism does not allow for a given reified statement to belong to more than one collection.S2APdddA @ 4118382143T[[[The final two points above may not be strictly true, but if not it is not clear how to use standard RDF to obtain the effects described.]]]SA  T8 -3.1 A general container for sets of resourcesTxmWe define here a container class and property that overcomes the above problems when used for statement sets:TNrdfc:Set is a class that may be a container for an arbitrary set of resources.SRAPdddA PA PA PA @ 411838271A8 0A8 3T,rdfc:member is a property whose domain is an rdfc:Set, and whose range is any RDF resource type. It is used to indicate that its object is a member of its subject container.S2APdddA @ 411838271A8 0A8 A8 -50A8 -13TThus, we have:EJfU=SJAPAP7ddd7APA PLfSA PtfS~APAPAHP<NCTN'[Container] -rdf:type-----> [rdfc:Set]A8 A8 "TD+[ ] --rdfc:member--> [SomeResource]A8 TG.[ ] --rdfc:member--> [AnotherResource]A8 T[ ] :TC etc.SAPddA8 T)Note that, unlike the standard RDF container classes, this structure does not permit repeated instances of the same resource or value in an rdfc:Set container.A8 0A8 Tr.To maximize compatibility with RDF schema [2]:SA PA PA8 *-#[2]T;rdfc:Set is defined to be a subclass of rdfs:Container, andS<APdddA PA @ 411838272A8 0A8 A8 (60A8 (,3TMrdfc:member is defined to be an instance of rdfs:ContainerMembershipProperty.S2APdddA @ 411838272A8 0A8 A8 ,L0A8 ,03T 3.2 Statement setsT|qBuilding on the generic set container described above, a statement set and membership thereof are represented by:Tcrdfc:StatementSet is a subclass of rdfc:Set, and represents a collection of reified RDF statements.S2APdddA @ 411838273A8 0A8 A8 #+0A8 #'3Trdfc:quotes is defined to be a sub-property of rdfc:member, used to indicate a reified statement that is a member of a statement set. Its domain is restricted to rdfc:StatementSet, and its range is rdf:Statement.S2APdddA @ 411838273A8 0A8 A8 /:0A8 /3A8 0A8 A8 0A8 3TThus, we have:E2fU>SJAPAP7ddd7APA PLfSA PtfS~APAPAHP<N+TP)[SS] -rdf:type-----> [rdfc:StatementSet]A8  A8 T>%[ ] --rdfc:quotes--> [SomeStatement]A8  TA([ ] --rdfc:quotes--> [AnotherStatement]A8  T [ ] :T< etc.SAPddA8  T, !3.3 A notation for statement setsTThe notation used above requires that an explicit identifier be allocated for each reified statement that is included in a statement set. Sometimes, we wish to simply state that the reified form of some given statements is contained in a statement set.TA6The following notation is introduced for this purpose:EfU?SJAPAP7ddd7APA PLfSA PtcfS~APAPAHP<NT8[StatementSet] --rdfc:quotes-->A8 T {T% [Sub1] --prop1--> [Obj1]T% [Sub2] --prop2--> [Obj2]T :T! (etc.)A8 T }T)This is interpreted to mean that the reifications of [Sub1] --prop1--> [Obj1] and [Sub2] --prop2--> [Obj2], etc., are quoted by [StatementSet].A8 6N0A8 Um0A8 0Tv)QThe above expression can be expressed using the quadruple notation of appendix B:SA PA PEKfU@SJAPAP7ddd7APA PLfSA PtfS~APAPAHP<ND T)S1: [Sub1] --prop1--> [Obj1]T)S2: [Sub2] --prop2--> [Obj2]T :T% (etc.)A8  T T=$[StatementSet] --rdfc:quotes--> [S1]A8 T=$[StatementSet] --rdfc:quotes--> [S2]A8 T  :T(etc.)SA  T)This notation is not limited to the rdfc:quotes property: using this notation, any property may be repeated over the reifications of statements the braces.A8 $/0A8 $(T'4. RDF elements for contextsTHere, we introduce a class and some properties used to describe a Context, which is a statement set with some additional structural and logical properties.A8 BI1A8 Vc1Trdfc:Context is a subclass of rdfc:StatementSet, and represents a context. By inheritance this consists at base of a set of reified statements.S2APdddA @ 411838274A8 0A8 A8 /0A8 "A8 #/03Tuhrdfc:asserts is defined to be a sub-property of rdfc:quotes, used to indicate a reified statement that is a member of a context, and which is also asserted to be true in that context. Thus, it corresponds to the ist (i.e. is true in) relation described by McCarthy and Guha [3] [4]. Its domain is restricted to rdfc:Context, and its range is rdf:Statement.SHAPdddA PA @A @ 411838274A8 0A8 A8 0;0A8 04A8 #[3]A8 #[4]A8 ;G0A8 ;?A8 Zg0A8 Z]3T3Thus, we have:SA PA PE]fUASJAPAP7ddd7APA PLfSA PtfS~APAPAHP<NVTU.[SomeContext] -rdf:type------> [rdfc:Context]A8 A8 !%TH/[ ] --rdfc:asserts--> [SomeStatement]A8 TK2[ ] --rdfc:asserts--> [AnotherStatement]A8 T [ ] :TE etc.SAPddA8 T)The rdfc:quotes property may be used with an rdfc:Context: when used, it means that the indicated reified statement is included in the set of statements comprising the context, but is not asserted by the context. This is needed if the context makes statements about other statements that are not themselves held to be true; e.g. Graham says the sheep is pink might be represented as:A8 0A8 A8 -90A8 -1EfUBSJAPAP7ddd7APA PLSfSA Pt5fS~APAPAHP<N TK$[A] -rdf:type------> [rdfc:Context]A8  A8 T[ ]TU<[ ] --rdfc:asserts--> [ ] -rdf:type-------> [rdf:Statement]A8  T@5[ ] [ ] --rdf:subject----> [Graham]T>3[ ] [ ] --rdf:predicate--> [says]T;0[ ] [ ] --rdf:object-----> [B]T[ ]TU<[ ] --rdfc:quotes---> [B] -rdf:type-------> [rdf:Statement]A8  TC8[ ] [ ] --rdf:subject----> [The sheep]T@5[ ] [ ] --rdf:predicate--> [colour]TS3[ ] [ ] --rdf:object-----> [pink]SAPddT2)NOTE: it might be questioned whether non-asserted statements actually belong in a context. One of the motivations for this work is to have a way to collect together related parts of an RDF graph, so this has been adopted as a helpful idea.SAPdddA8A8 T9 .4.1 Asserting statements in different contextsTSome statements and their association with two different contexts may be expressed by the following RDF (enhanced notation) model:SA PA PEyfUCSJAPAP7ddd7APA PLfSA PtfS~APAPAHP<NrT>3s1: [MyPage] ------author--------> Graham KlyneTF;s2: [MyPage] ------status--------> My personal opinionsT4)s11: [GKBelieves] --rdfc:asserts--> [s1]T4)s12: [GKBelieves] --rdfc:asserts--> [s2]T4)s21: [GKAssures] ---rdfc:asserts--> [s1]TI)s22: [GKAssures] ---rdfc:asserts--> [s2]SAPddT)YNote that a statement may be marked to be true in any number of different contexts. Thus, the rdfc:asserts property may be applied any number of times using a given statement. Naturally, any number of statements may be by a given context: this kind of grouping of statements into larger units is one of the driving motivations for this proposal.A8 ^j0A8 ^bTvLater, we explore extending the range of rdfc:asserts to allow certain relationships between contexts to be expressed.A8 )50A8 )-T0%5. Using contexts: logical constructsTSo far, RDF elements have been introduced to represent statement sets and contexts, and to describe the essential structures relating them and (reified) statements.TIn this section, we explore some ways contexts can be used to organize information, and use these explorations to suggest additional constructs to express some logical properties of contexts.T% 5.1 Contexts as containersTThe most obvious use of a context is as a container for some collection of statements. An RDF document may contain a number of statements. Assertions applied to the document might be taken to apply to each of the statements contained in the document.T For example, a signature applied to a document creates some kind of assurance about the content of that document. This assurance would reasonably be considered to apply to each of the statements within the document. To apply such assurances individually to each statement seems cumbersome, especially given the fine-grained nature of individual RDF statements. Thus, we have one application for contexts that is to facilitate making assertions about collections of statements.S$A PA @A @T$5.1.1 A possible approachTOne might imagine saying that any properties applied to a context are taken to be equivalent to applying the same properties (and values) individually to each of the reified statements that hold for that contexts. Then:SA PA PEfUDSJAPAP7ddd7APA PLKfSA Pt-fS~APAPAHP<NT>3s1: [MyPage] -----author---------> Graham KlyneTF;s2: [MyPage] -----status---------> My personal opinionsTB)s3: [GKContext] --rdfc:asserts---> [s1]A8 TB)s4: [GKContext] --rdfc:asserts---> [s2]A8 T>3s5: [GKContext] -assuredBy------> Graham KlyneTR2s6: [GKContext] -assuredBy------> IndependentSAPddT>would be interpreted to imply:SAP d dEfUESJAPAP7ddd7APA PLhfSA PtJfS~APAPAHP<NTE,s1: [MyPage] --author-----> Graham KlyneSA PTM4s2: [MyPage] --status-----> My personal opinionsSA PTE,a1: [s1] ------assuredBy--> Graham KlyneSA PTE,a2: [s2] ------assuredBy--> Graham KlyneSA PTD+a3: [s1] ------assuredBy--> IndependentSA PTU+a4: [s2] ------assuredBy--> IndependentSAPddA PT%5.1.2 A preferred approachTThe simple approach described above conflicts with other possible uses for contexts, so we propose a level of indirection that makes more explicit the distribution of assertions over the contained statements. This follows the idea of interpretation properties described by Tim Berners-Lee [7]. In this case, the proposed interpretation property is one that explicitly applies the properties to all of the contained statements:SAP d dA8 #&#[7]EfUFSJAPAP7ddd7APA PLfSA PtfS~APAPAHP<NT@5s1: [MyPage] -----author-----------> Graham KlyneTH=s2: [MyPage] -----status-----------> My personal opinionsTD+s3: [GKContext] --rdfc:asserts-----> [s1]A8 TD+s4: [GKContext] --rdfc:asserts-----> [s2]A8 TG.s5: [GKContext] --rdfc:applyToAll--> [_stmt]A8 T@5s5: [_stmt] ------assuredBy--------> Graham KlyneTT     4s6: [_stmt] ------assuredBy--------> IndependentSAPddTA)Here rdfc:applyToAll indicates that all properties applied to the object resource are to be applied individually to each statement that holds in the subject context; [_stmt] is a local place-holder resource of implied type rdf:Statement.A8 0A8  A8 0A8 0A8 TlNOTE: rdfc:applyToAll is presented here as a one-off case for use with contexts. Appendix A generalizes this idea to be applicable to an arbitrary container class.S-APdddAP d dA8A8 A8 0A8  AX8 Q[=#9.Appendix A: Distributing properties in a container|outlineTcNOTE: This is an alternative way to model statements about statements than that described in the RDF Model and Syntax [1], section 4.2. A significant difference is that this approach represents the distributed referent structure within the RDF graph, and therefore can be applied to context statements possibly not available when the RDF is de-serialized.S-APdddAP d dA8A8 A8 vy#[1]T% 5.2 Contexts as statementsT#As noted previously, McCarthy has described a context as a generalization of a collection of assumptions. This suggests that asserting the applicability of a context is equivalent to asserting the assumptions that it contains. Some of those assumptions may be explicitly stated.TE:In this respect, a context may assume some of the attributes of a statement: it may be regarded as true or false (or unknown) in the sense that the assumptions that it embodies are all true, or otherwise. Its truth (or otherwise) may depend upon the applicability of some other context. The kinds of metalogical operations that apply to statements (conjunction, implication, negation, etc.) could be usefully applied to contexts, treating a context as a kind of composite statement. It could even make sense to combine statements and contexts in metalogical expressions.TaTreating contexts as statements in this way, the rdfc:asserts property could be interpreted thus:A8 1=0A8 15EfUGSJAPAP7ddd7APA PL2fSA PtfS~APAPAHP<NT'[Context] --rdfc:asserts--> [Statement]SAPddA8 A8  A8 A8  T)meaning:E}fUHSJAPAP7ddd7APA PL fSA PtfS~APAPAHP<NvTm[Context] implies [Statement]S)APddA A  A8 A8  T)That is, if the set of assumptions, implicit and explicit, contained in a context are held to be true then, by implication, any statement asserted by the context must also be true.TODThese considerations suggest some new constructs for using contexts:TPa way to indicate explicitly known assumptions that are engendered by a context,S2APdddA @ 4118383213TFa way to indicate that one context is subsumed by another context, andS2APdddA @ 4118383213TGa class for the properties that contexts and statements have in common.S2APdddA @ 4118383213T2'5.2.1 Representing explicit assumptionsT2The property rdfc:assumes can be used to indicate explicitly stated assumptions for a context. The assumption might be represented as a single rdf:Statement, or as an rdfc:Context in which case all of the statements that are explicitly assumed by the object context are also assumed in the subject context.SA PA @A8 0A8  A8 0A8 A8 0A8 A8 /EfUISJAPAP7ddd7APA PL1fSA PtfS~APAPAHP<NT~4[] --rdfc:assumes--> []SAPddA8 A8 A8 %(T )orEfUJSJAPAP7ddd7APA PL0fSA PtfS~APAPAHP<NT}3[] --rdfc:assumes--> []SAPddA8 A8 A8 %)T,)By asserting the RDF statements assumed by one context, one might try to deduce that all statements asserted by that context are also true in the referencing context. But not all assumptions are necessarily stated explicitly, so this deduction is not generally valid. Thus, a distinction must be made between the explicit assumptions associated with a context, and the statements that are asserted to be true. Assertions in one context do not necessarily carry over with the explicitly stated assumptions -- see the next section.SA PT5.2.1.1 ExampleTxNFor an example, let us expand on two contexts introduced by John McCarthy [3]:A8 JM#[3]TASHS: Sherlock Holmes Stories, in which Holmes is a detective.S2APdddA @ 3729535013THUSL: U.S. Legal History, in which Holmes is a Supreme Court justice.S2APdddA @ 3729535013T?$Then, we have in the first context::SA PEfUKSJAPAP7ddd7APA PLfSA PtrfS~APAPAHP<NTR[ ] --rdf:type--> [Person]SAPddA PA8  TD[ ] --surname---> HolmesSAPddA PTG[ ] --isa-------> detectiveSAPddA PT%)And in the second context:EfULSJAPAP7ddd7APA PLfSA PtpfS~APAPAHP<NTR[ ] --rdf:type--> [Person]SAPddA PA8  TD[ ] --surname---> HolmesSAPddA PTE[ ] --isa-------> justiceSAPddA PT%)Introduce a third context:T~9LAO: Law and Order, in which it is explicitly assumed that (a) detectives solve crimes, and (b) justices sit in court. It is implicitly assumed that this context refers to characters in real life rather than finction, so let this context also assert that justices are well-paid, and detectives are poorly paid.S2APdddA @ 3729535013TshFinally, let us assume that the Law and Order context is explicitly assumed by the other two contexts.Ta<Expressing this as extended RDF quadruples (see Appendix B):SA PA PEp faMSVAPAP7ddd7A PAPA PL fSA Pt fS~APAPAHP<N]  T^&S1: [Anon(1)] --rdf:type--> [Person]SAPddA PA8 TP&S2: [Anon(1)] --surname---> HolmesSAPddA PTS)S3: [Anon(1)] --isa-------> detectiveSAPddA PTQ'S4: [Anon(1)] --isa-------> justiceSAPddA PT*SAPddA PTS)S5: [Anon(2)] --isa-------> detectiveSAPddA PTV,S6: [Anon(2)] --does------> solve crimesSAPddA PTM#S7: [Anon(2)] --pay-------> lowSAPddA PT*SAPddA PTQ'S8: [Anon(3)] --isa-------> justiceSAPddA PTV,S9: [Anon(3)] --does------> sit in courtSAPddA PTN$S10: [Anon(3)] --pay-------> highSAPddA PT*SAPddA PTr,C11: [SHS] --rdf:type------> [rdfc:Context]SAPddA PA8 A8 #TZ"C12: [SHS] --rdfc:asserts--> [S1]SAPddA PA8 TZ"C13: [SHS] --rdfc:asserts--> [S2]SAPddA PA8 TZ"C14: [SHS] --rdfc:asserts--> [S3]SAPddA PA8 T[#C15: [SHS] --rdfc:assumes--> [LAO]SAPddA PA8 T*SAPddA PTr,C21: [USL] --rdf:type------> [rdfc:Context]SAPddA PA8 A8 #TZ"C22: [USL] --rdfc:asserts--> [S1]SAPddA PA8 TZ"C23: [USL] --rdfc:asserts--> [S2]SAPddA PA8 TZ"C24: [USL] --rdfc:asserts--> [S4]SAPddA PA8 T[#C25: [USL] --rdfc:assumes--> [LAO]SAPddA PA8 T*SAPddA PTr,C31: [LAO] --rdf:type------> [rdfc:Context]SAPddA PA8 A8 #TZ"C32: [LAO] --rdfc:assumes--> [S5]SAPddA PA8 TZ"C33: [LAO] --rdfc:assumes--> [S6]SAPddA PA8 TZ"C34: [LAO] --rdfc:asserts--> [S7]SAPddA PA8 TZ"C35: [LAO] --rdfc:assumes--> [S8]SAPddA PA8 TZ"C36: [LAO] --rdfc:assumes--> [S9]SAPddA PA8 T[#C37: [LAO] --rdfc:asserts--> [S10]SAPddA PA8 T_)F(Note the use of anonymous resources to make assertions about a person designated by associated properties, rather than by formal identifier. NOTE: LAO really needs a way to express universal quantification and implication here. Also note, the statements C15 and C25 make use of a feature introduced in section 5.2.3 below.)A8 ETyS1-S10 are simply statements. No claim is made here that they are true, or even consistent (which they clearly are not).TC11-C14 introduce a context identified as SHS in which it is asserted that there is a person whose surname is Holmes and who is a detective. C15 indicates that the explicit assumptions of the context LAO (Law and Order) are also assumptions of SHS.TC21-C24 introduce a context identified as USL in which it is asserted that there is a person whose surname is Holmes and who is a justice. C25 indicates that the explicit assumptions of the context LAO (Law and Order) are also assumptions of USL.T]RFinally, C31-C37 introduce the explicit assumptions and assertions of context LAO.TYNThus, we have the context of Sherlock Holmes stories assuming the (explicit assumptions of the) Law and order context, from which we may deduce that Holmes solves crimes. But we cannot deduce that Holmes is poorly paid because there is an implicit assumption of the Law and order context that it describes non-fictional people.TG5.2.2 Subsuming contextsS$A PA PA PTThe property rdfc:asserts can be used to describe one context being subsumed by another; i.e. all assumptions and statements from one context being taken in to the other:SA PA8 0A8  EofUNSJAPAP7ddd7APA PLfSA PtfS~APAPAHP<NhT_'[Context1] --rdfc:asserts--> [Context2]SAPddA PA8  T<)is interpreted as meaning that Context1 subsumes Context2; i.e. every assumption made by Context2 is also taken to be an assumption in Context1, and every statement asserted in Context2 is also asserted in Context1.A8 '0A8 190A8 Ya0A8 0A8 0A8 0T[3Interpreting rdfc:asserts as a logical implication:A8 0A8  EifUOSJAPAP7ddd7APA PL fSA PtfS~APAPAHP<NbTY[Context1] implies [Context2]SAPddA8 A8  T})Di.e. from the truth of Context1 we can deduce the truth of Context2.SA PA8 0A8 ;C0T}This leads us to consider what it means for a context (as opposed to a statement) to be true. The definition offered here is:TDefinition: a context is true iff all of the explicit and implicit assumptions of that context are true. Then, by implication, if a context is true then all statements true in it are also held to be true.SAPdddA8 3T5.2.2.1 ExampleTReturning to the example of section 5.2.1.1, consider that the description of context USL is re-stated so that the Law and order context is asserted bu the US legal history context:SA PA PA8 /EfaPSVAPAP7ddd7A PAPA PLfSA PtpfS~APAPAHP<NTr,C21: [USL] --rdf:type------> [rdfc:Context]SAPddA PA8 A8 #TZ"C22: [USL] --rdfc:asserts--> [S1]SAPddA PA8 TZ"C23: [USL] --rdfc:asserts--> [S2]SAPddA PA8 TZ"C24: [USL] --rdfc:asserts--> [S4]SAPddA PA8 T[#C25: [USL] --rdfc:asserts--> [LAO]SAPddA PA8 T)In this case, we might deduce that Holmes is poorly paid because all the implicit and explicit assumptions, and hence the stated assertions, of the LAO context are subsumed into the USL context.T=25.2.3 A unifying class for contexts and statementsTThe preceding discussion illustrates a motive to use statements and contexts interchangeably, when a context is being used to represent some collection of statements or assumptions. Defining one as a subclass of the other is not satisfactory because each has properties not shared by the other. (A statement has a very specific structure and relationship to the RDF model; a context can be used in ways not applicable to a statement.)TInstead, the class rdfc:Assertion is defined to be a superclass of both rdf:Statement and rdfc:Context. Where a statement or a context may be used as the domain or range of some property, this can be described using the rdfc:Assertion class.A8 !0A8 A8 HU0A8 HKA8 Zf0A8 Z^A8 z|/A8 0A8 TThese ideas are captured very easily by redefining the range of rdfc:asserts and rdfc:assumes to include contexts. The old range values allowing statements of the form:A8 @L0A8 @DA8 Q]0A8 QUEfUQSJAPAP7ddd7APA PLfSA Pt~fS~APAPAHP<NTj5[] --rdfc:asserts--> []A8 A8 A8 %)T5[] --rdfc:assumes--> []SAPddA8 A8 A8 %)T)iAre changed so that the rdfc:asserts and rdfc:assumes properties might be used in statements of the form:A8 $0A8 A8 )50A8 )-EfURSJAPAP7ddd7APA PLfSA Pt~fS~APAPAHP<NTj5[] --rdfc:asserts--> []A8 A8 A8 %)T5[] --rdfc:assumes--> []SAPddA8 A8 A8 %)T)@Where rdfc:Assertion can be an rdf:Statement or an rdfc:Context.A8 0A8  A8 ,0A8 "A8 3?0A8 37T5.2.3.1 ExampleTbAn example of this usage can be found in statements C15 and C25 of the example in section 5.2.1.1.S2APWdddWA @ 412517321A8 )b3#T$ 5.3 Contexts as resourcesTdYOne of the great difficulties that has been observed in trying to use RDF to model real world situations is that it is very difficult to construct a model of meaningful complexity without becoming utterly lost in the details of the RDF graph. The idea of contexts as containers leads quite naturally to a treatment of contexts as first class resources in their own right, representing the collection of statements describing some physical-world object. Further, the idea of contexts as statements (introduced above) suggests that the statements contained within a context might themselves be contexts.T:/Using these ideas, we can construct high-level models in terms of high-level resource and property concepts. The validity or consequences of these high-level relationships can be discovered by looking inside the corresponding contexts to find the component parts and the local interactions between them.T~Consider the example of equipment power supplies mentioned previously. At the highest level, one might model three components:EofUSSJAPAP7ddd7APA PLfSA PtfS~APAPAHP<NhT [MainsSupply]T[PowerSupplyUnit]T+ [Equipment]SAPddT-)"These could be related as follows:EfUTSJAPAP7ddd7APA PL:fSA PtfS~APAPAHP<NT<1[MainsSupply] ------supplyTo--> [PowerSupplyUnit]TK+[PowerSupplyUnit] --supplyTo--> [Equipment]SAPddTz)oTo examine the validity of each of these relationships, we need to look to the component features of each part.T[MainsSupply] might contain assertions corresponding to output voltage, supply current capability, AC or DC, supply quality, connector type, etc.A8 0Th[PowerSupplyUnit] might contain components [MainsInput] and [EquipmentOutput]. The [MainsInput] component would itself contain assertions that must be compatible with the [MainsSupply] context associated with the supplyTo property. Similarly, the [EquipmentOutput] property would contain assertions that must be compatible with the [Equipment] value indicated.A8 0A8 +70A8 <M0A8 S_0A8 0A8 0A8 0A8 LW0TSome initial exercises have suggested that using contexts in this way very greatly improves our ability to design models for related physical world objects.T$ 5.4 Contexts as languagesT{pMcCarthy and Guha both allow that different contexts may contain different linguistic assumptions; that a given symbol or name or string may have a different meaning in different contexts. To this extent, a context embodies a language (or at least some linguistic elements). The extent to which the linguistic constructs of one context are valid in another context depends crucially on the relationship between those contexts. If there is no (known) relationship then the corresponding statements are not usefully combined. When contexts are closely related, we can hope to map the linguistic constructs from one to another.T\7What is meant here by language? Language consists of:SA PA PT;a vocabulary -- a set of terms and associated meanings, andS2APdddA @ 4118383813Thsome rules of construction -- how may the vocabulary elements be combined to form composite expressions?S2APdddA @ 4118383813TSome rules of deduction -- how may one construct new expressions that are a logical consequence of exiting expressions, according to the applicable logic.S2APdddA @ 4118383813T With RDF, every resource and every property is identified by a URI (or, strictly, a URI-reference). Most URIs are expected to be globally unique, or unique within the environment within which they are used. The basic rules of construction are defined by the RDF model.TcXThus, the linguistic elements that are associated with a context would seem to be limited to the framework of logic used. RDF has been explicitly defined to not impose or define any single system of logic on statements that it represents; using a context to associate a particular system of logic used with statements seems to be a useful idea.Tq8Defining any such logic is, by its nature, outside the scope of current RDF so associating a logic with a context would seem to be likewise something that must be defined separately. This might be treated as one of the implicit assumptions of a context. (For example, see Tim Berners-Lees Semantic Toolbox [5].)A8 "21A8 36#[5]T6 +5.5 Contexts as frames (local name binding)TL3The discussion above suggests that the global nature of URIs means that the language element of a context does not need to include a context-dependent vocabulary. Our experience in trying to construct models of real systems seems to suggest that some kind of local variable facility seems to be desirable.A8 3TFor example, if I want to use a context to collect the statements describing my car, some resources may be needed to stand for parts of my car, such as the chassis, the engine, the registration, etc., used as subjects of statements that describe my car.TTIOne way to do this, used in the example in section 5.2.1.1, is to introduce anonymous resources whose properties constitute a definite description [9]. In some circumstances, this approach seems rather cumbersome when access to some resource denoted by a surrounding or referencing context more simply achieves the same end.TQFFor example, I may wish to describe my car as a Ford Escort, and have many of its properties defined by statements in a common context describing that kind of car. But if the generic description of a Ford Escort uses global URIs, they cannot apply to my car, and also some other car that also happens to be a Ford Escort.TzContexts can overcome this problem by allowing certain names to have meaning that is defined by the nesting of contexts within which the name-use occurs. Within an RDF context, such names must ultimately stand for a URI reference, but allowing a local name to stand for different URI-references when used in different contexts (or in contexts referenced by different contexts).TT/Here is an illustration of some of these ideas:SA PA PEfUUSJAPAP7ddd7APA PLfSA PtufS~APAPAHP<NT([MyCar] --isa--> [FordEscort]T2[ ] --rdfc:asserts-->A8  T {T,! [TheBody] ----color-----> redT/$ [TheEngine] --capacity--> 1600ccT }T T$[FordEscort] --asserts-->T {T/$ [TheBody] ----material---> steelT :T+ [TheEngine] --cylinders--> 4T+ [ ] --valves-----> 8T :T! (etc.)A8 T }T/)When [MyCar] references [FordEscort], the desired effect is that references to [TheBody] and [TheEngine] become descriptions of those components of [MyCar], rather than some other car that happens to be a Ford Escort.A8  0A8 $0A8 OX0A8 ]h0A8 0T]D[[[Mechanisms for name binding to be researched/defined/evaluated]]]SA  T3[[[Anonymous resources?]]]SA  T- "5.6 Relationships between contextsTHere, we examine some ways in which contexts may be related. Such relationships may define how assertions can be lifted from one context to another.T*5.6.1 Specialization of contextT Some context Context2 may be regarded as a specialization of Context1 if every statement true in Context1 is also true in Context2, and there may be further assertions that are true in Context2 but not in Context1. This can be expressed by an rdfc:asserts relationship:SA PA PA8 0A8 =E0A8 ai0A8 z0A8 0A8 0A8 0EwfkVS`APAP7ddd7A PAPA PA PLfSA PtfS~APAPAHP<NZTQ'[Context2] --rdfc:asserts--> [Context1]SAPddA PT)bindicates that Context2 is a specialization of Context1, assuming both employ compatible language.SA PA8 0A8 /70TD9(This is an instance of subsuming contexts -- see above.)T%5.6.2 Component of contextTA context as a component of another context has been discussed above. A context as a component of another context is expressed by an rdfc:asserts relationship:A8 0EWfUWSJAPAP7ddd7APA PLfSA PtfS~APAPAHP<NPTG'[Context1] --rdfc:asserts--> [Context2]SAPddT[)2indicates that Context2 is a component of some larger set of assertions from Context1, assuming both employ compatible language. This is equivalent to saying that the containing context is a specialization of the component (see above), which is reasonable as the component is placed into a specified usage.A8 0A8 MU0T&5.6.3 Projection of contextTxOProjection is the general case of the kind of relationship described by McCarthy [3] as specialize-time. It involves assuming a value or values in one context that are not specified in a more general context. As such, statements that are true in the projected context cannot be asserted in the more general context unless the assumed value is also mentioned. In conventional first order logic frameworks, this is achieved by changing the arity of a predicate so that the assumed value is stated explcitly in the more general context; i.e. it involves a change to the language of the context.A8 -A8 Xg4TSuppose that Context1 is a projection of Context2 in which the current year is assumed to be 2000. Then, the following relationship holds:S$A PA PA PA8 0A8 )10EfuXSjAPAP7ddd7A PA PAPA PA PLfSA PtfS~APAPAHP<NhT_'[Context1] --rdfc:asserts--> [Context2]SAPddA PA8  T)Further, any statement that is true in Context1 is also true in Context2 if the year is explicitly qualified to be 2000. Thus we have:SA PA PA8 '/0A8 @H0EfuYSjAPAP7ddd7A PA PAPA PA PL#fSA PtfS~APAPAHP<NyTp8[Context1] --rdfc:asserts--> (NumberOfDays(February)=29)SAPddA PA8  T3)(and can also deduce from the projection:EfuZSjAPAP7ddd7A PA PAPA PA PLsfSA PtUfS~APAPAHP<NTC[Context2] --rdfc:asserts-->SA PA8  T}7 ( (year=2000) implies (NumberOfDays(February)=29) )SAPddA PA8A8 TE)+Note that this is one form of lifting rule.A8 *1TThus, projection can be regarded as a kind of specialization in which the exact nature of the additional assumptions is known, hence rules for lifting assertions into the more general context can be derived.TIn this way, projection can be expressed through through multiple rdfc:asserts or rdfc:assumes relationships, which explicitly state the projection assertions.A8 BN0A8 BFA8 R^0A8 RVT 5.6.4 Default contextTThe motivation for considering default context relationship is that it provides a controlled basis for introducing nonmonotonic reasoning. In nonmonotic reasoning, the introduction of new facts can falsify facts that were previously held to be true, something that does not happen with conventional logic. For example, the expression birds fly is generally held to be true. But penguins are birds, and the fact that penguins cannot fly is an exception to the general rule.T:/A default context relationship is expressed as:EefU[SJAPAP7ddd7APA PLfSA PtfS~APAPAHP<N^TU'[Context1] --rdfc:default--> [Context2]SAPddA8  T/)meaning that any statement that is true in Context1 is taken to be true in Context2 unless explicitly overridden. Further, any statement that can be deduced in Context2 using facts from Context1 is true unless explicitly overridden.A8 +30A8 KS0A8 0A8 0T8Thus, Context1 may contain the (default) assertion Birds fly, and Context2 may state Penguins are birds. From this, one might deduce in Context2 Penguins fly. But Context2 may contain an explicit assertion Penguins cannot fly, which would override the deduction based on a default assertion in this case.A8 0A8 DL0A8 0A8 0TAt this time the means of overriding (negating) an RDF assertion is not specified. It may be dependent on the particular logic being employed, and as such would be dependent on the linguistic assumptions associated with a context.S.A PA PA PA @TO'5.6.4.1 An alternative to rdfc:default?A8 &0A8 T?In a message to the W3C RDF-logic mailing list [8], Pat Hayes has suggested that monotonic logic can be handled to some extent in ordinary logic by representing non-monotonicity as "fungible assumptions" which act as "inference fuses", using which one can build monotonic chains of proof about non-monotonic inferences.S.A PA PA PA @A8 /2#[8]TfAs long as the default assumptions underpinning a chain of reasoning are not known to be false, standard monotonic logic applies. When an exception sitiuation is encountered (e.g. penguins are birds that cannot fly) the default assumptions (e.g. birds fly) are discounted -- the inference fuse is blown -- and the previous chain of logic must be revised.S.A PA PA PA @TkThis suggests that assertions that are assumed by a context might be a way to introduce non-monotonic reasoning: anything that is included in a context as an assumption must be regarded as questionable, and any inferences based on that assumption, or based on any context that depends on that assumption, must be subject to review if the assumption is challenged.S.A PA PA PA @T^[[[Needs some discussion]]]S8A PA PA PA  A @T6. ApplicationTWe are working on a project to use contexts to model hardware and software components of computer systems using RDF, as part of a project to build a general purpose, RDF-driven, expert system framework.TQ8[[[Work in progress -- further details to be supplied]]]SA  T*7. Conclusions and further workTOther than linguistic changes between contexts, the essentioal structural properties of contexts described here are expressed by:T/rdfc:SetSAPdddT8rdfc:StatementSetSAPdddT3 rdfc:ContextSAPdddT5rdfc:AssertionSAPdddT2 rdfc:memberSAPdddT2 rdfc:quotesSAPdddTD rdfc:assertsS-APdddAPddTLAFurther logical properties of contexts have been described using:T6rdfc:applyToAllSAPdddT3 rdfc:assumesSAPdddTD rdfc:defaultS-APdddAPddTWe have found that using contexts to represent components seems to make it very much easier to express some kinds of physical world relationships; further work is planned to test these ideas in a more demanding role. The mechanism of contexts described here seems to be a natural way to attach security- and trust- related information to an RDF model; again, further work is planned to prove these ideas.T>3There are a number of issues and questions concerning some more esoteric (but potentially useful) applications of contexts that still need to be worked out. One of the complications is that RDF does not contain a generalized framework for logical reasoning, so certain operations that would be needed for some of these applications are not defined. A feature of RDF is that different systems of logic may be employed in different models, or different parts of the same model. It is not clear at this time whether a specific logical framework should be defined for just these applications of contexts, or whether they should be based on a locally applied system of logic. In any case, it seems unhelpful to define a logical framework for this purpose if it is likely that some standard framework will be defined for RDF.T Some specific issues:TWCan a common language be assumed across all contexts? I.e. the same identifiers used with the name meaning in all places? For the most part, it appears that this is the case for RDF, but there will be cases where additional semantics have to be introduced into the framework (e.g. Tim Berners-Lees Semantic Toolbox [5]). It would seem that Contexts are a good way to scope such usage, but the implications of this for the other relationships described above have yet to be determined.S2APdddA @ 411838431A8 +;A8 <?#[5]3TIhandling of defaults is not fully specified, for reasons indicated above.S2APdddA @ 4118384313T@Work is under way to implement these ideas in an experimental RDF database and associated visual modelling tool. This implementation will be used to experiment with developing models for relationships between physical world systems, and trust modelling.S8A PA PA PA @A @T8. AcknowledgementsT.The author would like to thank the following for comments and suggestions made during a meeting at HP Labs in Bristol, and subsequent e-mail discussion: Brian McBride , Stuart Williams , Dan Brickley Libby Miller Dave Beckett Jan Grant Craig Pugsley .A58 mailto:bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.comA58 mailto:skw@hplb.hpl.hp.comA/8 mailto:danbri@w3.orgA<8 *!mailto:Libby.Miller@bristol.ac.ukA58 :Mmailto:cmdjb@bristol.ac.ukA98 Zqmailto:Jan.Grant@bristol.ac.ukA?8 $mailto:Craig.Pugsley@MIMEsweeper.comT^SSome corrections and improvements were suggested by Jonas Liljegren .T 9. ReferencesT [1] Resource Description Framework (RDF) Model and Syntax Specification Ora Lassila, Ralph R Swick W3C Recommendation, 22 February 1999 http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-rdf-syntaxK A8 GA>8 #http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-rdf-syntaxT[2] Resource Description Framework (RDF) Schema Specification 1.0 Dan Brickley, R. V. Guha W3C Candidate Recommendation, 27 March 2000 http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-schemaK A8 AA:8 http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-schemaT[3] Notes on Formalizing Context John McCarthy Computer Science Department, Stanford University http://www-formal.stanford.edu/K A:8 `http://www-formal.stanford.edu/T[4] Contexts: A Formalization and Some Applications Ramanathan V. Guha Stannford PhD Thesis, 1991 http://www-formal.stanford.edu/K A8 3A:8 bhttp://www-formal.stanford.edu/Tt[5] The Semantic Toolbox Tim Berners-Lee Personal ramblings, 24 May 1999 http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/Toolbox.htmlK A8 AF8 It+http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/Toolbox.htmlTi[6] Generality in Artificiual Intelligence John McCarthy Communications of the ACM, Vol 30, December 1987K A8 *T[7] Interpretation properties Tim Berners-Lee Personal view, 29 Feb 2000 http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/InterpretationProperties.htmlK A8 AW8 I<http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/InterpretationProperties.htmlT"[8] Random thoughts on web logic Pat Hayes Message to W3C RDF-logic mailing list, 22 Sept 2000 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-logic/2000Sep/0007.htmlK A8  A^8 _Chttp://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-logic/2000Sep/0007.htmlT,[9] Bertrand Russell, The Problems of Philosophy, Home University Library, 1912 Oxford University Press paperback, 1959 http://www.ditext.com/russell/russell.html (Chapter V introduces the definite description idea.)AE8 z*http://www.ditext.com/russell/russell.htmlT@5Appendix A: Distributing properties over a collectionTThis appendix describes a generalized framework for distributing properties over resources in a container, of which the application of rdfc:applyToAll to contexts can be regarded as a special form.A8 0A8 TrDefine a new property, rdfd:distributesOverObjectsOf, whose domain is rdfs:Class, and whose range is rdf:Property.S2APdddA @ 411838432A8 40A8 A8 FP0A8 FJA8 eq0A8 eh3TAlso define the property rdfd:applyToAll that is used to distribute the application of some statements over resources linked to some collection resource.S2APdddA @ 411838432A8 (0A8 3TThe subject of an rdfd:applyToAll property is an instance of a class with one or more rdfd:distributesOverObjectsOf properties applied to corresponding rdfs:Class resource. The objects of properties thus designated are the distribution target resources.S2APdddA @ 411838432A8  0A8 A8 Vs0A8 VZA8 0A8 3TuThe object of an rdfd:applyToAll property is a place-holder resource, about which a number of statements may be made.S2APdddA @ 411838432A8  0A8 3TThe effect of this construct is that statements whose subject is the placeholder resource may be inferred as applying with any of the distribution target resources as subject.S2APdddA @ 4118384323TSimilarly, define a new property, rdfd:distributesOverSubjectsOf, whose domain is rdfs:Class, and whose range is rdf:Property. This has the same effect as rdfd:distributesOverObjectsOf, except that (a) the distribution target resources are subjects of the indicated property, (b) the place-holder resource is the object of some statements, and (c) the statements whose object is the placeholder resource may be inferred as applying with any of the distribution target resources as object.S2APdddA @ 411838432A8 "@0A8 "&A8 R\0A8 RVA8 q}0A8 qtA8 0A8 3T/$Example. For contexts we would have:EfU\SJAPAP7ddd7APA PL5fSA PtfS~APAPAHP<N Ts>[rdfc:Context] --rdf:type-----------------------> [rdfs:Class]A8 A8 A8 37Tg@[ ] --rdfd:distributesOverObjectsOf--> [rdfc:asserts]A8 A8 37T TU.[AContext] --rdf:type---------> [rdfc:Context]A8  A8 !%TI0[ ] --rdfd:applyToAll--> [ ] --p1--> [v1]A8  T;0[ ] [ ] --p2--> [v2]T5*[ ] [ ] (etc.)T=$[ ] --rdfc:asserts-----> [s1]A8  TR$[ ] --rdfc:asserts-----> [s2]SAPddA8  T#From this, we can infer:EsfU]SJAPAP7ddd7APA PLfSA PtfS~APAPAHP<NlT[s1] --p1--> [v1]T[ ] --p2--> [v2]T+ [ ] (etc.)SAPddTandEsfU^SJAPAP7ddd7APA PLfSA PtfS~APAPAHP<NlT[s2] --p1--> [v1]T[ ] --p2--> [v2]T+ [ ] (etc.)SAPddT,!Appendix B: Enhanced RDF notationTFirst the enhanced notation is introduced, then I shall try to demonstrate informally that it can be mapped into and out of the standard RDF model.S8A PA PA PA @A @TThe standard RDF model uses triples to represent RDF statements: each triple consists of a predicate resource, a subject resource and an object resource or literal. Resources are denoted by URIs.T8-The enhanced notation used here uses quadruples to represent RDF statements. As with the standard model, there are the predicate, subject and object. The fourth element is a URI that denotes the reification of the statement. Thus each quadruple both denotes a statement and identifies its reification.T&The quadruple form can be converted to triples by explicit reification as described in RDF Model and Syntax [1]. The resource created to represent a reified statement should be given the statement identifier that appears in the corresponding quadruple.A8 lo#[1]T`UA standard RDF model consisting of triples can be converted to the quadruple form by:TNIdentify all statements of the form: [] --rdf:type--> [rdf:Statement]S2APdddA @ 411838491A8 %N03THFor each such statement, find all corresponding statements of the form: [] --rdf:predicate--> [] [] --rdf:subject----> [] [] --rdf:object-----> [] having the same [] identifier.S2APdddA @ 411838491A8 H0A8 03ToFor each such triple of statements, find the corresponding statement consisting of: [] ----> []S2APdddA @ 411838491A8 To03T<Replace each group of five triples found by the above procedure with a single quadruple consisting of: [] ----> [] and having a statement identifier value the same as the resource identifier.S2APdddA @ 411838491A8 g0A8 03T"Finally, replace any triples not processed by the above procedure by a corresponding quadruple containing the same predicate, subject and object values, and an automatically selected statement identifier (possibly null?).S2APdddA @ 4118384913TThe conversion described above from a standard RDF model to the enhanced quadruple form is not perfect, but I believe the shortcomings are not of concern for practical purposes:T$The standard RDF model allows a reified statement to be described without actually asserting it. (e.g. If I were feeling awkward, I might claim that the resource http://www.w3.org/ does not exist.) The underlying reason for this exercise is to simplify the introduction of contexts, and I claim that the same effect can be achieved using contexts (e.g. The resource http://www.w3.org/ does not exist is true in in the context of my imagination when I am feeling awkward).S2APdddA @ 4118384923TThe standard RDF model allows elements of reified statements to themselves be reified and used as the subject of some other statement. (e.g. I claim that the object of statement X should be Y.) The enhanced quadruple model does not prevent such statements being made, but the mapping between quadruple and triple forms would need to be smarter. I dont see this being a significant issue in practice.S2APdddA @ 4118384923T} The standard RDF model can theoretically allow partial reifications; e.g. [] --rdf:predicate--> [] [] --rdf:subject----> [] but no corresponding [] --rdf:object-----> [] I think this might reasonably be regarded as an error.S2APdddA @ 411838492A8 J0A8 0A8 03Ti^In the final analysis, everything expressed using the quadruple model described here can be described faithfully using the standard RDF triple-based model. Thus, any construct proposed based on this model can also be handled using the standard model, so using the enhanced model as a basis for discourse does go beyond the capability of standard RDF.TTIThe standard RDF syntax allows a property to be given an identifier; e.g.T^7SAPdddTe> SAPdddT7 Graham KlyneSAPdddT2 SAPdddTFS-APdddAPddTI understand that SiRPAC (and maybe other RDF parsers) use the presence of such an identifier on a property as a signal to generate a reified statement corresponding to that occurrence of the property, using the identifier for the resource denoting the reified statement. This applies very easily to the enhanced model: the given identifier is simply used for the statement identifier field of the quadruple.T;0Finally, some comments on notation. I shall use:E_fU_SJAPAP7ddd7APA PLfSA PtfS~APAPAHP<NXTO/StatementId: [Subject] --predicate--> [Object]SAPddT&to represent the statement:EQfU`SJAPAP7ddd7APA PLfSA PtfS~APAPAHP<NJTA![Subject] --predicate--> [Object]SAPddT\Band its reification represented by a resource named StatementId.A8 5@0T.#Appendix C: RDF schema for contextsT" [[[TBD]]]SA  JHP LaserJet 5/5M PostScriptHP LaserJet 5/5M PostScriptTQt3TNWHP LaserJet 5/5M PostScriptw 3dXX*Cp3RdCustom page 1|CCCustom page 2|CCCustom page 3|CC7 UbbV88.,O?.AUE#6PffUE# E#HfE#?:lE#o?-oU<<A?DU<<A/EoU<<?DU<<noE#o?-oU<<A?DU<<A/EoU<<?DU<<@E#uU E#/?BE#BE#?Up$BE#U~Bp E#QUp6-U6:E# E#Ff@ E#OB.AUE#6pffUE# E#HfE#?:lE#o?-oU<<A?DU<<A/EoU<<?DU<<noE#o?-oU<<A?DU<<A/EoU<<?DU<<@E#U E#/?BE#Ep+"E#E#jSabE#j Ӕ"E#+E#*Sd'bE# b-E#E*" b?E#E*"bQE#bcE#E*"buE#E*"bE#bE#E*"b E#E*"b E#E*"b E#b E#E*"b E#bE#E*"bE#E6!b)E#E6!b;E#E*"bME#E6!b_E#EQbqE#E6!bE#EQ bE#E6!!bE#EQ"bE#E*"#bE#E*"$bE#E*"%bE#E*"&bE#E6!'bE#E6!(b% E#E6!)b7!E#E6!*bI"E#EQ+b[#E#,bm$E#-b%E#.b&E#/b'E#$0b)E#1b*E#2-U6:E# E#Ff@ E#\%.AUE#6PffUE# E#HfE#?:lE#o?-oU<<A?DU<<A/EoU<<?DU<<noE#o?-oU<<A?DU<<A/EoU<<?DU<<@E#U E#/? BE#6BE#E#l7B E#E#~8B>E#-E#9BkE#?U!$:BE#QU!6;BE#?U!$<B:E#uU!Z=B%E#?U!$>-U6:E# E#Ff@ E#`%.AUE#6pffUE# E#HfE#?:lE#o?-oU<<A?DU<<A/EoU<<?DU<<noE#o?-oU<<A?DU<<A/EoU<<?DU<<@E#U E#/?BE#?BE#XE#=@BE#jE#OA_Z E#U7s?;AU7s?-sUPPP?FUPPPB E#2 E#G_E#U7 }?<AU7 }?-}UPPP?FUPPPBE#D E#$MBE#VU u 6NBQE#E#OBE#?E#$PBC E#?E#$QB#E#?E#$R@B&E#9E#SAB)E#?E#$TC-U6:E# E#Ff@ E#C%x .AUE#6PffUE# E#HfE#?:lE#o?-oU<<A?DU<<A/EoU<<?DU<<noE#o?-oU<<A?DU<<A/EoU<<?DU<<@E#U E#/?BE#UDBE#Uu VEBE#o E#OWIBvE#E#~XPBE#cE#HYTBrE#E#lZZBE#uE#Z[_Bn$E#E#l\e-U6:E# E#Ff@ E#]%VN.AUE#6pffUE# E#HfE#?:lE#o?-oU<<A?DU<<A/EoU<<?DU<<noE#o?-oU<<A?DU<<A/EoU<<?DU<<@E#U E#/?BE#]fBE#-E#^gBE#-U!_hBE#-U!`iBE#?U!$akB^ E#?U!$bmBE#-U!cnBE#-U!doBE#E#epBE#-E#fqBE#-U!grBE#-U!hsB1E#-U!itB^E#9E#juB!E#?E#$kwB$E#XU!=lzB.)E#-U!m{B[+E#?U!$n}-U6:E# E#Ff@ E#У%4.AUE#6PffUE# E#HfE#?:lE#o?-oU<<A?DU<<A/EoU<<?DU<<noE#o?-oU<<A?DU<<A/EoU<<?DU<<@E#=U E#/?BE#=E!=oB=E#?U!$pB|E#?E#$qB E#E#rBn E#?E#$sBE#4U!tBE#XU!=uB9E#-E#vԯfE#U7?=U7?}UPPPG?FUPPPFUP-PFUP PFUPPFUPPBhE#K E#+B!E#2 E#B#E#4U!B&E#MU!2Bf)E#E#B,E#?E#$-U6:E# E#Ff@ E#%.AUE#6pffUE# E#HfE#?:lE#o?-oU<<A?DU<<A/EoU<<?DU<<noE#o?-oU<<A?DU<<A/EoU<<?DU<<@E#qU E#/? BE#+E!+B+E#_U!DBE#-E#ԯE#U7?>U7?}UPPPG?FUPPPFUP-PFUP PFUPPFUPPBE#E#BAE#QE#6BE#-E#E#U7y??U7y?yUPPP?FUPPPFUP-PFUPPFUPPFUPPFUPyPFUPVPBSE#R E#2B"E#2 E#$E#P U7 0?@U7 0?0UPPP? FUPPPFUP#PFUPPFUPPFUPPFUPyPFUPVPFUP3PFUPP -U6:E# E#Ff@ E#%.AUE#6Pff UE# E#HfE#?:lE#o?-oU<<A?DU<<A/EoU<<?DU<<noE#o?-oU<<A?DU<<A/EoU<<?DU<<@E#¢U E#/? BE#+B+E#> E#BiE#?E#$BE#FU!+B E#U!oBxE#-E#ԯE#U7?AU7?}UPPPG?FUPPPFUP-PFUP PFUPPFUPPBE# E#a'(!E# U7  ?B U7  ? UPPP/ ? FUPPPFUP-PFUPPFUPPFUPPFUPPFUPVPFUP)PFUPP FUPP FUPP -U6:E# E#Ff@ E#f%Y.AUE#6pff UE# E#HfE#?:lE#o?-oU<<A?DU<<A/EoU<<?DU<<noE#o?-oU<<A?DU<<A/EoU<<?DU<<@E#U E#/? BE#6Eu 6B6E# E#BE#?E#$- E#U7?CU7?'UPPP?FUPPPFUP#PFUPPFUPPFUPPFUPoPBE#o E#OBIE#K E#+BE#9E#BE#?E#$B E#QE#6B]#E#E#B&E#QE#6Ba*E#QE#6-U6:E# E#Ff@ E#А%.AUE#6Pff UE# E#HfE#?:lE#o?-oU<<A?DU<<A/EoU<<?DU<<noE#o?-oU<<A?DU<<A/EoU<<?DU<<@E#*U E#/? BE#6B6E#ZE#?BE#QE#6 E#U7?DU7?UPPP?FUPPPFUP#PFUPPFUPPFUPPFUPPBE#2 E#E#U7 ?EU7 ?UPPP?FUPPPFUP#PFUPPFUPPFUPPFUPoPBE#/E#?BE#z E#Z/"E#U7 ?FU7 ?UPPP?FUPPPFUP#PFUPPFUPPFUPPFUPPFUP`PB)E#k E#K-U6:E# E#Ff@ E#e%.AUE#6pff UE# E#HfE#?:lE#o?-oU<<A?DU<<A/EoU<<?DU<<noE#o?-oU<<A?DU<<A/EoU<<?DU<<@E#U E#/? BE#=Eu =B=E#zU u Z B E# E# Bo E#cE#H BE#E#~ BkE#FE#+ _E#U7}?GAU7}?-}UPPP?FUPPPBI E#2 E#_{"E#U7 ?HAU7 ?-UPPP?FUPPPB%E#D E#$Ba(E#2 E#B*E#-U!B,E#-U!-U6:E# E#Ff@ E#m%h".AUE#6Pff UE# E#HfE#?:lE#o?-oU<<A?DU<<A/EoU<<?DU<<noE#o?-oU<<A?DU<<A/EoU<<?DU<<@E#U E#/?BE#E!BE#ZE#?BlE#xE#]_E#U7}?IAU7}?-}UPPP?FUPPPB| E#2 E#%_ E#U7 }?JAU7 }?-}UPPP?FUPPPBKE# E#l+BE#2 E#, B E#-E#- B6E#-E#. BcE#-E#/ B E#-E#0 ԇ"E#>U7#?KiU7#?U#UPPP?FUPPPFUP-PFUPPB&E#2 E#8ԇ-)E#CU7 #?LiU7 #?U#UPPP?FUPPPFUP-PFUPP-U6:E# E#Ff@ E#%Fe.AUE#6pffUE# E#HfE#?:lE#o?-oU<<A?DU<<A/EoU<<?DU<<noE#o?-oU<<A?DU<<A/EoU<<?DU<<@E#]U E#/?BE#@BE#h E#HABzE#?E#$BB E#-E#C E#U7?MU7?'UPPP? FUPPPFUP-PFUPPFUPPFUPPFUPyPFUPLPFUPPFUPP FUPP FUPP FUPk P FUP> P FUP PFUP PFUP PFUP PFUPPFUPbPFUP5PFUPPFUPPFUPPFUPPFUPPFUPYPFUP6PFUPPFUPPFUPPFUPPFUPP B(E#h E#Hh-U6:E# E#Ff@ E#u%$.AUE#6PffUE# E#HfE#?:lE#o?-oU<<A?DU<<A/EoU<<?DU<<noE#o?-oU<<A?DU<<A/EoU<<?DU<<@E#U E#/?BE#$iB$E#QE#6jBuE#QE#6k"B E#-E#l#B E#cE#Hm'BVE#ZE#?n(BE#FE#+o*_E#U7}?NAU7}?-}UPPP?FUPPPBE#k E#Ku-BE#9 E#v._2!E#U7?OAU7?-UPPP?FUPPPB#E#9 E#|/B&E#D E#$}1BL)E#VUu ;~4-U6:E# E#Ff@ E#%.AUE#6pffUE# E#HfE#?:lE#o?-oU<<A?DU<<A/EoU<<?DU<<noE#o?-oU<<A?DU<<A/EoU<<?DU<<@E#“U E#/? BE#5BE#?E#$7ԯQE# U7?PU7?}UPPPQ?FUPPPFUP-PFUP PFUPPFUPPB] E#V E#6:BE#_ E#?;BE#uE#Z@BE#xE#]DBE#ME#2FsL E#uU7Z?QUU7Z?AZUPPP?FUPPPFUP-PB#E#K E#+Hs 'E#zU7 Z?RUU7 Z?AZUPPP?FUPPPFUP-PB*E#9 E#I-U6:E# E#Ff@ E#{%-.AUE#6PffUE# E#HfE#?:lE#o?-oU<<A?DU<<A/EoU<<?DU<<noE#o?-oU<<A?DU<<A/EoU<<?DU<<@E#U E#/? BE#JBE#?U< #$LBQE#E#MBE#E#~TBE#cE#HXBE#?E#$Zԇ?E#4U7?SiU7?UUPPPy?FUPPPFUP#PFUPPBsE#2 E#[sE#fU7 F?TUU7 F?AFUPPP?FUPPPFUP#PB "E#D E#$]BO%E#K E#+_B(E#E#}d-U6:E# E#Ff@ E#л%p.AUE#6pffUE# E#HfE#?:lE#o?-oU<<A?DU<<A/EoU<<?DU<<noE#o?-oU<<A?DU<<A/EoU<<?DU<<@E#UU E#/? BE#$fB$E#E#gBE#E#~nBp E#-E#oBE#-U!pBE#?U!$rB E#?U!$tBHE#QE#6wBE#cE#H{B!E#cE#HB_'E#E#B*E#cE#H-U6:E# E#Ff@ E#%.AUE#6PffUE# E#HfE#?:lE#o?-oU<<A?DU<<A/EoU<<?DU<<noE#o?-oU<<A?DU<<A/EoU<<?DU<<@E#nU E#/? BE#6B6E#cE#HBE#cE#HB E#uE#ZBqE#-E#ԋE#U7 ?UmU7 ?Y' UPPPD ?FUPPPFUP#PFUPPFUPPFUPPFUPyPFUPLPFUPPFUPP FUPP FUPP FUPk P FUP> P FUP PFUP PFUP PB%E#d E#DB*E#2 E#B3,E#-E#-U6:E# E#Ff@ E#X%z.AUE#6pffUE# E#HfE#?:lE#o?-oU<<A?DU<<A/EoU<<?DU<<noE#o?-oU<<A?DU<<A/EoU<<?DU<<@E#U E#/? BE#BE#?E#$BE#ZE#?B1E#E#d_ E#U7s?VAU7s?-sUPPP?FUPPPB>E#K E#+BE#2 E#BE#ZE#?BE#FE#+_[E#U7s?WAU7s?-sUPPP?FUPPPBE#o E#OBX"E#_ E#?B$E#E#~-U6:E# E#Ff@ E#%X9.AUE#6PffUE# E#HfE#?:lE#o?-oU<<A?DU<<A/EoU<<?DU<<noE#o?-oU<<A?DU<<A/EoU<<?DU<<@E#©U E#/?BE#+_+E#U7}?XAU7}?-}UPPP?FUPPPBE#K E#+_E#U7 }?YAU7 }?-}UPPP?FUPPPB E#2 E#s E#U7 _?ZUU7 _?A_UPPP?FUPPPFUP-PB\E#2 E#BE#V E#6BE#ME#2B1E#ZE#?BE#E#lB$E#-E# _?&E#U7}?[AU7}?-}UPPP?FUPPPB(E#k E#K-U6:E# E#Ff@ E#е%6|.AUE#6pffUE# E#HfE#?:lE#o?-oU<<A?DU<<A/EoU<<?DU<<noE#o?-oU<<A?DU<<A/EoU<<?DU<<@E#OU E#/? BE#]B]E#QE#6BE#@E#%B E#cE#HBQE#cE#HBE#uE#ZB)E#-E#BVE#9E#B!E#QE#6B%E#-E#B (E#9E#BF+E#?E#$-U6:E# E#Ff@ E#I%.AUE#6PffUE# E#HfE#?:lE#o?-oU<<A?DU<<A/EoU<<?DU<<noE#o?-oU<<A?DU<<A/EoU<<?DU<<@E#U E#/?BE#Eu BE#Eu BE#Eu ByE#Eu BLE#Eu BE#Eu !BE#Eu "BE#-E##BE#Uu $B E#Eu %B E#Eu &B E#uE#Z'BE# E# ( BE#-E#)BE#U!l*Bl&E#-U!+ B(E#QE#6, -U6:E# E#Ff@ E#%.AUE#6pffUE# E#HfE#?:lE#o?-oU<<A?DU<<A/EoU<<?DU<<noE#o?-oU<<A?DU<<A/EoU<<?DU<<@E#U E#/? BE#- BE#E#l.B E#-E#/B E#9E#0B E#cE#H1BnE#cE#H2BE#cE#H3!B4E#cE#H4%B$E#cE#H5)B)E#QE#66,-U6:E# E#Ff@ E#Љ%D.AUE#6PffUE# E#HfE#?:lE#o?-oU<<A?DU<<A/EoU<<?DU<<noE#o?-oU<<A?DU<<A/EoU<<?DU<<@E##U E#/? BE#H70BHE#cE#H84B E#E#l9:B2E#WE#<:<BE#XE#=;?BE#MU!2<AB.E#FU!+=CBt!E#xU!]>GB&E#FU!+?IB2*E#QU!6@L-U6:E# E#Ff@ E#O%.AUE#6pffUE# E#HfE#?:lE#o?-oU<<A?DU<<A/EoU<<?DU<<noE#o?-oU<<A?DU<<A/EoU<<?DU<<@E#U E#/? BE#E!ASBE#-E#BT E#b U7G?\U7G?GUPPP? FUPPPFUP-PFUP PFUPPFUPPFUPPFUPjPFUP=PFUPP B"E#PUԇ4E#4U7?]iU7?UUPPPy?FUPPPFUP#PFUPPBhE#XVԇzE#4U7?^iU7?UUPPPy?FUPPPFUP#PFUPPBE#E#`WB E#?E#$aYB#E#QE#6b\BL(E#cE#Hc`-U6:E# E#Ff@ E#Ѝ%.AUE#6PffUE# E#HfE#?:lE#o?-oU<<A?DU<<A/EoU<<?DU<<noE#o?-oU<<A?DU<<A/EoU<<?DU<<@E#'U E#/? BE#6dcB6E#-E#edBcE#.U!ffBE#IU!.gkBE#.U!hmBE#kU!PirBsE#QU!6juBE#?E#$kwB E#U!ll}B'E#uU!Zm-U6:E# E#Ff@ E#Ф%j .AUE#6pffUE# E#HfE#?:lE#o?-oU<<A?DU<<A/EoU<<?DU<<noE#o?-oU<<A?DU<<A/EoU<<?DU<<@E#>U E#/?BE#9E!9nB9E#cE#HoB E#-E#pB E#Uu qBE#Eu rBE#Eu sB]E#Eu tB0E#Eu uBE#uE#ZvBxE#-E#w_E#U7s?_AU7s?-sUPPP?FUPPPB3E#}_EE#U7s?`AU7s?-sUPPP?FUPPPB!E#B"E#9E#B%&E#-E#-U6:E# E#Ff@ E#'!Zŵ 5yS8qbݺB̦ӡCM7R$]=v6e:E`L'q݇nNSV~v%Root Entry ®`VCompObj<Ole persist elements"SfxDocumentInfo uSfxWindows=SfxStyleSheetsSwNumRules<SummaryInformation( hSwPageStyleSheets$ "3StarWriterDocument&<