RE: The Peter paradox isn't.

Pat:
> > >The summary of all this is that if you want to be a
> same-syntax extension
> > >of the RDF model theory and you have
> > >a) rdf:type as a property;
> > >b) defined classes, like DAML+OIL restrictions;
> > >c) some sort of complement or negation; and
> > >d) self reference
>

I had wondered whether changing (a) and not having rdf:type as a property
would be the simplest fix.

The other three all strike me as desirable.

It seems like a very minor change to RDF and one that I reckon those of us
in both groups would be able to get passed the rest of RDF Core without too
much difficulty.

Jeremy