- From: Frank Manola <fmanola@mitre.org>
- Date: Fri, 08 Feb 2002 06:32:50 -0500
- To: Jos De_Roo <jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com>
- CC: w3c-rdfcore-wg <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Jos--
My understanding was that this was teasing out whether statements were
in "Platonic space" ("of course there's a statement that says
that....somewhere") vs. in some more restricted (and interesting)
domain. I could be wrong though!
--Frank
Jos De_Roo wrote:
> [...]
>
>
>>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
>
>
--
Frank Manola The MITRE Corporation
202 Burlington Road, MS A345 Bedford, MA 01730-1420
mailto:fmanola@mitre.org voice: 781-271-8147 FAX: 781-271-875
Received on Friday, 8 February 2002 06:29:22 UTC