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

RE: Dark triples motivation

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2002 14:25:06 +0100
To: "Jonathan Borden" <jonathan@openhealth.org>
Cc: <www-webont-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <JAEBJCLMIFLKLOJGMELDIELECDAA.jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>

> How does this particular example demonstrate a problem? Why should this
> convince DanC?

Not me to answer. I was trying to rearticulate what I thought I heard from
Pat and Peter, who appear to be the only people who actually understand what
the problem we are trying to solve actually is. That seemed to be the heart
of your "when the two _do agree_ ... it is fine by
me". I took that as the voice of the consensus!

>  One of PeterPS's examples used a paradoxical class i.e. a
> member of itself. Is there a similar class that does not depend on the
> use of the 'Q's? e.g. would something like:
>
> <ont:Class rdf:ID="foo">
> 	<ont:unionOf rdf:parseType="ont:collection">
> 		<ont:Class rdf:about="#foo"/>
> 		<ont:Class rdf:about="#bar"/>
> 	</ont:unionOf>
> </ont:Class>
>
> be a problem? or


No this says that #bar is a subset of #foo

>
> <ont:Class rdf:ID="foo">
> 	<ont:disjointUnionOf rdf:parseType="ont:collection">
> 		<ont:Class rdf:about="#foo"/>
> 		<ont:Class rdf:about="#bar"/>
> 	</ont:disjointUnionOf>
> </ont:Class>
>

This one says that #bar is empty.

> I'm just guessing, but the example should demonstrate a paradox - right?

Sorry no. With a bit more work you would arrive at a contradiction; a
paradox needs to go much deeper. Peter's paradox is a work of art.

>
> Jonathan
>
>

Jeremy
Received on Wednesday, 17 April 2002 09:26:18 GMT

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