Re: Thinking on the semantics of Named Graphs from Jeremy Carroll on 2004-07-02 (www-archive@w3.org from July 2004)

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Fri, 02 Jul 2004 08:38:48 +0100
To: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
Cc: Yuzhong Qu <yzqu@seu.edu.cn>, www-archive@w3.org, Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>, Chris Bizer <chris@bizer.de>
Message-ID: <40E51108.4080409@hplb.hpl.hp.com>

> This all makes sense only if there is a way for one graph to talk about 
> the truth of another, which I don't think there is, strictly, unless we 
> count owl:imports as a kind of remote assertion.

I prefer seeing owl:imports as a syntactic mechanism and to stear clear 
of the potential paradox problems with the log: vocab ...

Jeremy

Received on Friday, 2 July 2004 03:39:45 UTC