RE: RDF specifications

[...]

> 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
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-interest/2001Dec/0123.html
)

--
Jos