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@[65.217.30.94]>
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
>http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/Notation3
>
>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.

Pat

-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------------
IHMC					(850)434 8903   home
40 South Alcaniz St.			(850)202 4416   office
Pensacola,  FL 32501			(850)202 4440   fax
phayes@ai.uwf.edu 
http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/~phayes
Received on Monday, 15 April 2002 10:57:33 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:57:49 GMT