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

Re: UPDATE: longer version of layering document

From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Date: Fri, 08 Feb 2002 23:17:40 -0500
To: jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com
Cc: connolly@w3.org, www-webont-wg@w3.org
Message-Id: <20020208231740P.pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
From: "Jos De_Roo" <jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com>
Subject: Re: UPDATE: longer version of layering document
Date: Sat, 9 Feb 2002 00:29:24 +0100

> 
> 
> >> 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

I don't understand how ``by-value'' or ``by-reference'' come into the
equation here.  Could you expand on this?

peter
Received on Friday, 8 February 2002 23:17:50 GMT

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