This page is a historical archive. For the latest information please visit

Gianni Amati and Fiora Pirri

Contexts as relativized definitions: a formalization via fixed points.

[mail to author]
[mail to moderator]
[debate procedure]

Overview of interactions

N:o Question Answer(s) Continued discussion
2 9.1  John McCarthy
9.1  Fiora Pirri
3 9.1  Tom Costello
9.1  Fiora Pirri
5 9.1  François Lévy
9.1  Fiora Pirri

Q2. John McCarthy:

I would have thought that representing contexts as fixpoints would give you more problems that by other methods, for example as explicit objects. Can you compute the fixpoint?

A2. Fiora Pirri:

Yes, of course.

Q3. Tom Costello:

Your argument that contexts are implicit is based on them not being mentioned in natural language. However, that argument is irrelevant, and if accepted it could be applied against very many constructs in current work in our field. Wouldn't it be better to represent contexts by amalgamation, starting with small ones and composing larger ones from them?

A3. Fiora Pirri:

One would then have the problem of how to design those elementary contexts in order that they do the right thing when composed. We do not have a methodology for finding out the right level of refinement.

Q5. François Lévy:

What happens when viewpoints are inconsistent?

A5. Fiora Pirri:

That is OK, they do not have to be consistent.

This on-line debate page is part of a discussion at recent workshop; similar pages are set up for each of the workshop articles. The discussion is organized by the area Reasoning about Actions and Change within the Electronic Transactions on Artificial Intelligence (ETAI).

To contribute, please click [mail to moderator] above and send your question or comment as an E-mail message.