W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-archive@w3.org > January 2002

Re: Grist for layering discussion

From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2002 17:23:30 -0500
To: timbl@w3.org
Cc: sandro@w3.org, phayes@ai.uwf.edu, hendler@cs.umd.edu, las@olin.edu, connolly@w3.org, w3c-semweb-ad@w3.org, www-archive@w3.org
Message-Id: <20020112172330H.pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
From: "Tim Berners-Lee" <timbl@w3.org>
Subject: Re: Grist for layering discussion 
Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2002 20:04:27 -0500

> Butting into Peter and Sandro's discussion... and making a point different
> from Sandro's.
> 
> Abstract: The n3 logic system does not fall for Russel's paradox because it
> doesn't allow
>   an implicit introduction of contradictory statemnts in the definition of a
> set.

Well, maybe, and maybe not.  It is, of course, very hard to determine the
answer to this because there is no definition of N3!  In particular, there
is neither model theory nor proof theory nor axiomatization, at least that
I could find from the N3 ``home page'',

	http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/Notation3.html

If there is a definition for N3 I would sure like to get a look at it.

peter
Received on Saturday, 12 January 2002 17:25:10 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 7 November 2012 14:17:16 GMT