the whole RDF graph in a single moment, but instead, traverses through a graph by querying for future states and formalizing a model of past experiences [25]. The algorithm by which a process derives a new state is perhaps
"hardwired" [41], but what is returned by that query is dependent upon the structure of the full graph and the process' historic subgraph. Furthermore, by capitalizing on the notion of a contextualization of both the perspective of the process and the meaning of a statement, that query can yield different results for different processes. In general, it is the interaction between the structure of the world and the context of the process that determines process' subjective realization of the world into the future.

Suppose a process were to take a path through an RDF graph that included such concepts as Marko's publications, the members of the Center for Nonlinear Studies, his collaborations with the Center for Embedded Networked Sensing, and the various conferences he has attended. Given this set of experiences, the process has built up a mental model of Marko that primarily includes those aspects of his life that are scholarly.15 More generally, the process has been pigeonholed into a scholarly "frame of mind". Without any context, if that process were to inquire about the people that Marko knows (e.g. (lanl:marko, foaf:knows, ?o)), it would learn that Marko knows both Alberto and Carole. However, given the context of the process (i.e. the history as represented by its traversed subgraph), it will interpret "knowing" with respect to those people that Marko knows in a scholastic sense. Given Alberto and Carole, Marko knows Alberto in a scholarly manner, which is not true of Carole. There is little to nothing in Marko and Carole's Ty that makes reference to anything scholarly. However, in Marko and Alberto's Tx, the whole premise of their relationship is scholarly.

A simple way in which the process can make a distinction between the various interpretations of foaf:knows is to intersect its history with the context of the relationships. In other words, the process can compare its history subgraph with the subgraph that constitutes a dilated triple. If H ⊆ R
is a graph defining the history of the process which includes the process' traversal through the scholarly aspects of Marko, then it is the case that |H ∩ Tx| > |H ∩ Ty| as the process' scholarly perspective is more related to Marko and Alberto than it is to Marko and Carole. That is, the process' history H has more triples in common with Tx than with Ty. Thus, what the process means by foaf:knows is a "scholarly" foaf:knows. This idea is diagrammed in Figure 4, where H has more in common with Tx than with Ty, thus an intersection of these sets would yield a solution to the query (lanl:marko, foaf:knows, ?o) that included Alberto and not Carole.16