W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-owl-dev@w3.org > October to December 2008

Re: Mapping to RDF Graphs and reification

From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2008 18:23:23 +0000
Message-Id: <C6B88693-CBF0-4672-BB69-B94EDD77E293@cs.man.ac.uk>
Cc: "Jeff Thompson" <jeff@thefirst.org>, public-owl-dev@w3.org
To: "Daniel Mahler" <dmahler@gmail.com>

On 3 Dec 2008, at 17:34, Daniel Mahler wrote:

> Bijan,
>
> On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 6:03 PM, Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>  
> wrote:
>>
>> On 3 Dec 2008, at 16:49, Jeff Thompson wrote:
[snip]
>> Consider:
>>        s p o
>>        not(s p o)
>>
>> (where the second is a negated triple). We want these to  
>> contradict. The
>
> If you represent negation by reification,

"Encode negated sentences using reification", but ok.

> how do you avoid Tarski's paradox?

Tarski's paradox has nothing to do with this. So we avoid it by,  
well, not going anywhere near it :)

(Standardly, Tarsk's paradox is about having the languages own truth  
predicate as a part of the language. We have no truth predicate at all.)

For the non-Full part, this is just syntax. It is just ugly syntax  
for "not(s p o)".

Even if full, in some sense, most of the time, it's just syntax. The  
story is much more complex because it's also denoting objects in the  
domain and potentially could reflect on the syntax, yadda yadda, but  
that's no worse than anything else, really.

> (I asked this question question on a w3 rdf list many years ago
> and I still do not know)


Well, I hope you do now :)

Cheers,
Bijan.
Received on Wednesday, 3 December 2008 18:20:26 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 27 March 2013 09:32:56 GMT