W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-interest@w3.org > December 2001

RE: RDF specifications

From: <jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com>
Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2001 21:45:29 +0100
To: pfps@research.bell-labs.com
Cc: jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com, www-rdf-interest@w3.org
Message-Id: <OFD77953B6.C8925077-ONC1256B29.0070C921@bayer-ag.com>

> This is not at all what I meant.
> The problem is roughly that:
>    Sufficiently-powerful formalisms that include all their syntactic
>    structures in their interpretations and that (can) assert that
>    these syntactic structures are true are ill-formed.  (Think of the
>    liar's paradox.)
> The natural way of looking at DAML+OIL does fit in this class.  I do not
> know of any reasonable way of looking at DAML+OIL that does not fit in this
> class.

Thanks Peter for putting it so clear.
I've roughly checked and we're indeed
*not* asserting such stuff (but of course
we have to clarify our other discussion

Received on Friday, 21 December 2001 15:47:27 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:07:38 UTC