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