W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-webont-wg@w3.org > April 2002

Re: SEM: Re: more on a same-syntax extension from RDF(S) to OWL

From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
Date: Mon, 8 Apr 2002 03:20:10 -0400
Message-Id: <p05101501b8d6186bb994@[]>
To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Cc: www-webont-wg@w3.org
>On Tue, 2002-03-05 at 11:54, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
>>  I definitely agree with you that RDF reification is cumbersome.  But that
>>  doesn't make N3 formulae significantly better than RDF reification.  In
>>  fact, the (only) meaning given for N3 is via an underspecified 
>>``mapping into
>>  the RDF data model'', so somehow N3 formulae have to be mapped into RDF.
>My favorite N3 spec explains it in terms of KIF (i.e.
>first order logic plus quoting).
>     *  a formal design for RDF/N3 context/scopes
>       Dan Connolly to www-rdf-logic, Thu, Sep 06 2001
>     http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-logic/2001Sep/0004.html
>cited from the "Logic primitives" section of
>With running code to convert any N3 expression to KIF.
>   http://www.w3.org/2000/10/swap/KIFSink.py
>That reminds me... I'd like to see the same-syntax paradox
>written out in KIF. Maybe I could do it myself, but
>if you beat me to it, Peter (or anybody else), I'd appreciate it.

I would like to see this, too. I think it will make it vividly clear 
why it is not a paradox. One can write the definition of the Russell 
class and the liar sentence in KIF, and the result is not paradoxical 
in either case.


IHMC					(850)434 8903   home
40 South Alcaniz St.			(850)202 4416   office
Pensacola,  FL 32501			(850)202 4440   fax
Received on Monday, 15 April 2002 10:57:33 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:56:43 UTC