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

Re: UPDATE: longer version of layering document

From: Jos De_Roo <jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com>
Date: Sat, 9 Feb 2002 00:29:24 +0100
To: "Dan Connolly <connolly" <connolly@w3.org>
Cc: "\"\"Peter F. \"Patel-Schneider <pfps\"" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>, "WebOnt WG <www-webont-wg" <www-webont-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <OF9DF86253.F36E620B-ONC1256B5A.007FC060@agfa.be>


>> Hi:
>>
>> Dieter and I have put together the promised longer version of the
layering
>> document.  It is available at
>>
>>
http://www-db.research.bell-labs.com/user/pfps/semantic-web/layering.html
>
>"Given that the most attractive layering solution is not possible ..."
>
>Hmm... at the ftf you didn't conclude that it wasn't possible;
>only that it wasn't straightforward. I don't see anything
>in this paper that wasn't discussed at the meeting, so
>I don't see how you come to the stronger conclusion.
>
>Why doesn't section 5 discuss the possibilities for resolving
>the paradox? An axiom of foundations, intuitionistic logic,
>etc. The 4 possibilities discussed at the ftf
>meeting seem to have dwindled to 3.

also that example at the end of 4.2 contains
a cycle with nothing but blank nodes
and that is indeed paradoxical, but it
can be avoided if we stick with
the idea of having blank nodes ``by-value''
and not ``by-reference'' (after all, they
have no identifier, just maybe a label,
but that is *not* an identifier)

--
Jos
Received on Friday, 8 February 2002 18:30:04 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:57:47 GMT