- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2022 12:23:37 -0500
- To: public-rdf-star-wg@w3.org
It is the case that the RDF semantics does not break down (see my previous response on paradoxes). But RDF has non-denoting constructs, which one can view as a kind of paradox. One example is "x"^^xsd:int. peter On 12/16/22 11:29, Pierre-Antoine Champin wrote: > [...] > I think the whole paradox thing is a distraction. I started it, and I > shouldn't have -- my initial concern was about the ability to make > syntactically self referential statements, paradoxical or not. > > RDF's semantics is to weak to express paradoxes, and so will (probably) by > RDF-star's. > > Paradoxes may occur in semantic extensions, but we are not there yet. Let's > find consensus of the basic semantics first. > [...]
Received on Friday, 16 December 2022 17:23:50 UTC