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

Re: DTTF: comprehension

From: Jos De_Roo <jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com>
Date: Fri, 3 May 2002 14:20:53 +0200
To: jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com
Cc: "<www-webont-wg" <www-webont-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <OFBECFC339.AF81185E-ONC1256BAE.0041E658@agfa.be>

[very well done Jeremy]

> Conclusions:
> ============
> I think Pat and Peter exaggerate this issue.
> Finite set theory is trivial, countable set theory is not much harder.
> It's only when things get really big that life gets tough and we don't go
> there.
>
> Pat's proposal does involve explicit comprehension, illustrating that
it's
> no big deal.
>
> Peter's proposal does not have explicit comprehension and does not help
the
> implementator avoid paradox as a result.
>
> In practice implementators will have comprehension rules, and it is a
> helpful clarification for us to specify them.

If I may indeed quote http://www.agfa.com/w3c/euler/owl-rules.n3
We currently have it that we both assert list triples in
the N3 context of the graph level and in the N3 context of
their own subject. Leaving out the former is I think close
to Pat's dark list proposal, but, because owl lists are
not circular, those top level triples are not in the way.
For the rest, we are not able to (dis)prove a paradox
and have not seen trouble in case of their presence
(we have done tests with merging in paradoxes).

--
Jos
Received on Friday, 3 May 2002 08:21:34 GMT

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