- From: Michael Schneider <schneid@fzi.de>
- Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2008 13:14:19 +0100
- To: "Pierre-Antoine Champin" <swlists-040405@champin.net>
- Cc: "Pat Hayes" <phayes@ihmc.us>, <public-owl-dev@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <0EF30CAA69519C4CB91D01481AEA06A0EA6890@judith.fzi.de>
Pierre-Antoine Champin wrote: >Pat Hayes a écrit : >> Well, someone could argue that since the negation construction >involves >> meta-description, iterating it gives you a kind of truth predicate, in >a >> sense. Kinda. But Tarski's paradox doesn't arise for other reasons, >> having to do with how impoverished RDF is as an expressive logic. > >Wouldn't > > _:x rdf:type owl:NegativePropertyAssertion > _:x owl:sourceIndividual _:x > _:x owl:assertionProperty owl:sourceIndividual > _:x owl:targetIndividual _:x > >a perfect example of that paradox (in OWL Full, of course) ? This is simply a OWL 2 Full-inconsistent ontology. >From interpreting the second triple, we get <I(_:x),I(_:x)> in IEXT(I(owl:sourceIndividual)) And from interpreting the whole graph by applying the OWL 2 Full semantic conditions for negative property assertion, we get NOT [ <I(_:x),I(_:x)> in IEXT(I(owl:sourceIndividual)) ] This is obviously a contradiction. But there is no paradox. Michael -- Dipl.-Inform. Michael Schneider FZI Forschungszentrum Informatik Karlsruhe Abtl. Information Process Engineering (IPE) Tel : +49-721-9654-726 Fax : +49-721-9654-727 Email: Michael.Schneider@fzi.de Web : http://www.fzi.de/ipe/eng/mitarbeiter.php?id=555 FZI Forschungszentrum Informatik an der Universität Karlsruhe Haid-und-Neu-Str. 10-14, D-76131 Karlsruhe Tel.: +49-721-9654-0, Fax: +49-721-9654-959 Stiftung des bürgerlichen Rechts Az: 14-0563.1 Regierungspräsidium Karlsruhe Vorstand: Rüdiger Dillmann, Michael Flor, Jivka Ovtcharova, Rudi Studer Vorsitzender des Kuratoriums: Ministerialdirigent Günther Leßnerkraus
Received on Thursday, 4 December 2008 12:15:02 UTC