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

Re: A Rough Guide to Notation3

From: Jos De_Roo <jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com>
Date: Sun, 25 Aug 2002 01:40:51 +0200
To: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
Cc: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>, sean@mysterylights.com, "Seth Russell" <seth@robustai.net>, www-rdf-interest@w3.org
Message-ID: <OF1CD3AF9C.1B3C63D4-ONC1256C1F.0081B272@agfa.be>

[...]

> > Is there some reason we need a sentence to be it's own subject?
>
> I don't think so.  My proposal forbids that kind of sentence as well
> as the bigger loops.  We could try to only rule out paradoxical loops
> (I remember some formulation of wtr that's supposed to do this) if
> someone comes up with a good reason to allow benign loops.

[sorry to be a bit out of the loop]

take e.g.
{ ?p a owl:SymmetricProperty . ?s ?p ?o } log:implies { ?o ?p ?s } .

it says that if ?s ?p ?o is true then ?o ?p ?s is true
but also that if ?o ?p ?s is true then ?s ?p ?o is true
which is quite benign but nevertheless an assertion
of it's own truth-conditions so one has to stop such
further derivations although those are indeed stable
(and not like the noise/vibrations of paradoxes)

-- ,
Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/
Received on Saturday, 24 August 2002 19:41:32 GMT

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