- From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2008 12:44:27 +0000
- To: Pierre-Antoine Champin <swlists-040405@champin.net>
- Cc: Owl Dev <public-owl-dev@w3.org>
On 4 Dec 2008, at 11:11, Pierre-Antoine Champin wrote:
[snip]
> 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 just syntax. You need to examine what semantic *says* that
bit of syntax means, not just rest on intuitions. Afterall:
ClassAssertion(Comment("This sentence is false") a C)
could be read as a similarly perfect example. But it's not according
to the semantics since the comment is "meaningless". In a semantics
where some comments were meaningful:
ClassAssertion(TruthValue("FALSE") a C)
This *would* be a liar's paradox.
> What am I missing?
I'm afraid my free time and will to spelunk in the OWL Full semantics
is minimal. So I suggest you examine:
http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/RDF-Based_Semantics
and try to derive the paradoxical result. If you did, we'd probably
consider that a bug in the semantics.
(Or perhaps Michael will pop up with the interpretation.)
Cheers,
Bijan.
Received on Thursday, 4 December 2008 12:54:51 UTC