W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > February 2002

Re: reification decision process intro

From: Jos De_Roo <jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com>
Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2002 11:56:34 +0100
To: "Frank Manola <fmanola" <fmanola@mitre.org>
Cc: "w3c-rdfcore-wg" <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <OF368C637D.6AA919EE-ONC1256B5A.003AF81C@agfa.be>

[...]

> 2. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Feb/0202.html
> (Brian) if we decide that:
>
>    <s1> <rdf:type> <rdf:Statment> .
>    <s1> <rdf:subject> <subject> .
>    <s1> <rdf:predicate> <predicate> .
>    <s1> <rdf:object>    <object> .
>
>    <s2> <rdf:type> <rdf:Statment> .
>    <s2> <rdf:subject> <subject> .
>    <s2> <rdf:predicate> <predicate> .
>    <s2> <rdf:object>    <object> .
>
>    <s1> <prop> <value> .
>
> entails
>
>    <s2> <prop> <value> .
>
> then to be consistent we must also decide that anything (and nothing)
> entails:
>
>    _:s <rdf:type> <rdf:Statment> .
>    _:s <rdf:subject> <subject> .
>    _:s <rdf:predicate> <predicate> .
>    _:s <rdf:object>    <object> .
>
> for any subject, predicate and object.

I don't see the consistency issue here
assuming Tarski's
[[
  A deductive theory is called CONSISTENT or NON-CONTRADICTORY
  if no two asserted statements of this theory contradict each other,
  or, in other words, if any two contradictory sentences at least one
  *cannot* be proved.
]]
where is the inconsistency Brian???
It's actually "good luck" that we *cannot* prove everything!!!

--
Jos

ps I agree with 3
Received on Friday, 8 February 2002 05:57:13 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:45:08 EDT