W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-interest@w3.org > August 2002

Re: A Rough Guide to Notation3

From: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
Date: Sat, 24 Aug 2002 09:29:41 -0400
Message-Id: <200208241329.g7ODTfk22042@wadimousa.hawke.org>
To: "Jos De_Roo" <jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com>
cc: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>, sean@mysterylights.com, seth@robustai.net, www-rdf-interest@w3.org


> 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
Received on Saturday, 24 August 2002 09:30:23 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:51:55 GMT