From: Jos De_Roo <jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com>

Date: Fri, 3 May 2002 00:42:32 +0200

To: pfps@research.bell-labs.com

Cc: www-webont-wg@w3.org

Message-ID: <OFFD742A55.1989BF53-ONC1256BAD.007B5524@agfa.be>

Date: Fri, 3 May 2002 00:42:32 +0200

To: pfps@research.bell-labs.com

Cc: www-webont-wg@w3.org

Message-ID: <OFFD742A55.1989BF53-ONC1256BAD.007B5524@agfa.be>

[from the 2002-05-02 WebOnt WG telecon minutes] > PeterPS: if we're after test cases that show the *problem*, see the > circular paradox gizmo. It does use cardinalityQ; I could get rid of > that using complementOf, but that gets hairier > > In IRC, PeterPS provided: > > _:1 fowl:onProperty rdf:type . > _:1 fowl:hasClass _:2 . > _:2 fowl:OneOf _:3 . > _:3 fowl:first _:4 . > _:3 fowl:rest fowl:nil . > _:4 fowl:complementOf _:1 . > > _:1 is the set of objects > that are related to a particular complement of _:1 > via rdf:type > > if x rdf:type _:1 > then x rdf:type _:4 > but _:1 and _:4 are complements > > so not x rdf:type _:1 > if not x rdf:type _:1 > then x rdf:type _:4 > because _:1 and _:4 are complements > > but then x rdf:type _:1 > > the above is another problematic situation > > JimH: in sum, we're still working on SEM/dark triples stuff. Peter, you seem to go like either every formula has to exist in every model and one can write a paradoxical formula in OWL so there exists a paradox in every model and therefore the system is fundamentally broken -- that sounds like a self fulfilling prophecy I find one of the most important characteristics of a model that it captures the *correspondence* between the-name-of-the-thing that we have in the assertional language and the-named-thing expressed in the object language (using e.g. URI decoupling) I just can't find such correpondence for a paradox so how could they exist in every model ??? or one wants to prove a paradox by assertion of its negation and finding a contradiction which is succeeding here, so the paradox is proved of course it is, you have *asserted* an inconsistency and one should not do that -- I would make the claim that one cannot prove nor disprove a paradox, we just have incompleteness (no evidence/correspondence) -- JosReceived on Thursday, 2 May 2002 18:52:06 UTC

*
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1
: Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:56:43 UTC
*