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 22:44:49 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <20020827.224449.60028082.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 15:34:27 -0700

> From: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
> 
> re: http://robustai.net/mentography/negation_paradox.gif

[...]

> > > Yes, I agree.  <http://robustai.net/sailor/paradox.rdf> is a paradox and
> > > should be excluded from all graphs that purports to be binarialy
> > > logical.
> >
> > But how can you do this exclusion within RDF?
> 
> Wasn't that what Sandro was trying to do?   But as far as I know, RDF/XML is
> just just a syntax with an extremely small vocabulary of constant terms.  I
> dont know how to do any exclusion at all unless we get enough terms to write
> rules.
> 
> Why must we do this exclusion within the small vocabulary of RDF ?

Well, because, otherwise you are going outside of RDF.  (Even if you add
rules to RDF, these rules cannot forbid syntax constructions.  All they can
do is remove certain interpretations for the constructions.)

I have nothing against forbidding certain kinds of syntax, but it does
violate the ``universality'' of RDF, which some appear to be espousing.

> ... confused as always ...
> 
> Seth Russell
> http://robustai.net/sailor/


peter
Received on Tuesday, 27 August 2002 22:44:59 GMT

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