by everybody with no problem?
Your rhetorical question has no answer, as you do not say what you mean by 'contexts'. But in general, to move from speaking of times (which are relatively well-understood and thoroughly investigated) to 'contexts' is a retrograde step.
time statements is dependent on their context."
Bear in mind that the entire point of this whole community is to focus on ontological engineering. Now, if ontologies have anything in common, they are all intended to be used repeatedly, to be archivable for re-use, and usually transmittable from place to place on a network for re-use. Moreover, the agents doing the transmission and re-use are usually mechanical systems rather than human 'parties', and they cannot be relied upon to use human-level sophistication or awareness of such things as contexts of use. All of which means that ontologies, in notable contrast to human utterances in conversations and discussions, must be written so that their context of use is remote from, and usually unknown to, the context in which they are composed. Any contextual or indexical sensitivity which is liable to change the intended meaning, therefore, is likely to be a serious problem; and indeed this does sometimes occur, and it is indeed a serious problem. The ideal ontology framework is one in which all contextual sensitivity has been eliminated as far as possible. We know how to do this, in broad methodological outline: one imports into the ontology itself an explicit marker or markers of what would normally be considered the 'context'. In tensed terms, one does not speak of 'now', or use tenses whose meaning depends on the time of utterance, but rather puts explicit date and time markers on (or in) assertions, using a recognized and hopefully internationally ratified standard notation for indicating these times. If there is any risk of misunderstanding of the notation in a different context, one includes an explicit reference to the standard itself as part of the temporal reference, and so on. The general process is called 'decontextualizing',and in various forms it has been a hallmark of ontology engineering and indeed of KR work more generally since the beginning of the subject.
Yes, we can. Indeed, we must.
And surely, there is no need to eschew the word!
But there is a need to define it: that is, your particular use of it. For example, your understanding of what the word means, though never specified, seems to be completely remote from John Sowa's admirably clear sense of what he means by a context.
"20080121T000000 +0500" (ISO 8601 form)?
Certain carefully stated scientific measures of time, e.g.
timed by some other computer.
referenced to a particular clock that was adjusted to "sun time"