W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-interest@w3.org > February 2004

Re: RDF Triples in XML, named graphs

From: Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>
Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2004 18:59:07 +0000
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20040212185829.02cd4488@127.0.0.1>
To: Bob MacGregor <macgregor@ISI.EDU>, Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Cc: Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>, www-rdf-interest@w3.org

At 10:18 12/02/04 -0800, Bob MacGregor wrote:
>I think the answer is easy (but we'll see if someone confounds me)
>The problem would appear to revolve around the question of whether that 
>particular
>assertion is a part of the graph its commenting on, or is it not.
>If it is a part, then you have the liar's paradox.  So it can't be.
>
>The solution would seem to be that if you want to make assertions
>about a graph G1, those (provenance) assertions need to be
>made in a second graph G2.

This is resonant (to my mind) with Tarskian semantics :-)

#g


------------
Graham Klyne
For email:
http://www.ninebynine.org/#Contact
Received on Thursday, 12 February 2004 14:12:19 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 5 February 2014 07:14:58 UTC