Fwd: Mapping to RDF Graphs and reification

Bijan,

On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 6:03 PM, Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> On 3 Dec 2008, at 16:49, Jeff Thompson wrote:
....
> Personally, I think this is the least interesting problem with reification,
> if it is a problem at all :)
>
> It's definitely not a problem for the non-Full versions of OWL since all
> this stuff is mere syntax. The way we're using it, we typically *want* the s
> to denote something in the domain, and, in fact, to denote the same object.
>
> Consider:
>        s p o
>        not(s p o)
>
> (where the second is a negated triple). We want these to contradict. The

If you represent negation by reification,
how do you avoid Tarski's paradox?

(I asked this question question on a w3 rdf list many years ago
and I still do not know)

cheers
Daniel

> latter is serialized using the owl reification vocabulary. So we want those
> ss, ps, and os to be talking about the same thing at the same time.
>
> Thus, I don't think that's a problem.
>
> Hope this helps.
>
> Cheers,
> Bijan.
>
>
>

Received on Wednesday, 3 December 2008 18:16:33 UTC