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

Re: Layering LX (or FOL) on RDF

From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 18:08:31 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <20020827.180831.87602297.pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
To: seth@robustai.net
Cc: www-rdf-interest@w3.org

From: "Seth Russell" <seth@robustai.net>
Subject: Re: Layering LX (or FOL) on RDF 
Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 15:03:31 -0700

> From: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
> > From: "Seth Russell" <seth@robustai.net>
> > > From: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>

[...]

> Well, lots, including the fact that the arrows are not RDF statements, as
> they are more than triples.
> 
> Within one document, all the arrows are triples.  To express multiple
> formula, we need to use multiple RDF documents.

How can your ``arrows'' be triples, they have three ends!

> > Well the problem is that if you make this formula belong to pl:Falsity,
> > then the rules of logic say that it must belong to pl:Truth, and the rules
> > of logic also say that pl:Truth and pl:Falsity are disjoint.  Similarly, if
> > you make it belong to pl:Truth, then the rules of logic say that it must
> > belong to pl:Falsity.  So no matter what you do, you get into a bind.
> 
> Yes, I agree.  <http://robustai.net/sailor/paradox.rdf> is a paradox and
> should excluded from all graphs that purports to be binarialy logical.

But how can you do this exclusion within RDF?

> Seth Russell
> http://robustai.net/sailor/

peter
Received on Tuesday, 27 August 2002 18:08:41 GMT

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