Re: A Rough Guide to Notation3

> Well, I prefer Peter's option 1 as we already have it in N3 e.g.
>   P log:implies C .
> which is actually
>   ~P log:or C .
> and indeed neither ~P nor C are asserted, just their disjunction.
> I really don't see any problem in selfreference as long as you
> are not asserting your own truth-conditions, or as Pat once wrote

You can do that in N3 because it has a nested syntax, which allows you
to use formulas which are guaranteed to be non-self-referencial (since
they appear as {...} syntactic structures, which clearly cannot
contain themselves).  But if you flatten those syntactic structures
out into triples, so we can put it in RDF, then you're allowing people to
say
   P is_the_sentence (P log:implies C)
and 
   P is_the_sentence (P is false)
which is a problem.   (I think the problem is addressable, in a way
which doesn't hamper ordinary use, as I suggest in this message's
grandparent.   But it does require some complexity in ones
definitions.)  

     -- sandro