Thanks. I downloaded the paper from ftp://ftp.cc.gatech.edu/pub/gvu/tr/1999/99-22.pdf
After reading the paper several times I don't feel I'm any closer to understanding what the authors are trying to say.
As I see it, all applications use the sequence: input>process>output and what the authors are calling "context" seems to refer to data that changes with each "situation". At this level, you could claim that most if not all computing devices meet this requirement.
For example, you could claim that "situation" of Jaquard's loom of 1801 was the design of the cloth that the programmers entered into the punched cards and each new design requirement was a new "situation".
The paper reminded me of the points that Hyakawa made about abstractions in his book "Language in Thought and Action"
To be meaningful, nouns and noun phrases must (eventually) point to something in the physical world.
If the noun is an abstraction, then the abstraction must be based on something that is physically identfiable outside the realm of language.
Hayakawa uses the example of "Bessie the Cow" that is called an "Asset" by the farmer's accountant.
Hayakawa also exposes the emptiness of using words to define other words.
You can see this in the paper in the form of claims that "Our definition is better than their definition" and "This taxonomy is better than that taxonomy".
Anthropomorhism is another problem. "Awareness" is a characteristic of living things- not of inanimate computer systems.
The Sokal Hoax also came to mind where Alan Sokal used convoluted prose to appeal to the mindset of a publisher.