Re: rdf as a base for other languages

Sandro Hawke wrote:

>
> The only potential for confusion I see is that some people might want
> to jump from having a triple described (with ground facts) to assuming
> the described triple is true, but that seems clearly wrong.
>

Calling something a "fact" implies that it is "true". You might try to
assert a falsehood but that would be false or inconsistent. To be consistent
you must assert a fact, i.e. the fact _must be_ true. What am I clearly
missing?

-Jonathan