Re: A Single Foundational Logic for the Semantic Web

> >Perhaps I'm misreading it; if someone can present a
> >paradox using only log:forSome, log:forAll, and log:implies, then I
> >think I (and I'll venture TimBL and others) will be very interested.
> 
> ####### rpf.n3
> @prefix owl: <http://www.w3.org/2001/10/daml+oil#> .
> @prefix : <rp#> .
> 
> { ?x a :R } log:implies { ?x a [ owl:complementOf ?x ] } .
> { ?x a [ owl:complementOf ?x ] } log:implies { ?x a :R } .

Thanks, but I said "only".    No fair bringing in some other
vocabulary with a negation construct.

     -- sandro