Re: Can RDF* introduce paradoxes? And what if?

All I'm reading is (with presumed semantics): the fact '<> is a lie' is a
lie itself. Up to you to make sense of that. Don't see how this could be a
paradox, let alone harmful.

Op ma 25 jan. 2021 om 16:39 schreef thomas lörtsch <tl@rat.io>:

> [This question definitely shows a troublesome lack of understanding and
> research. Feel free to ignore.]
>
> One of the dangers of reification is that it introduces the possibility of
> paradoxes. The proposed literal-like semantics of RDF* doesn’t seem to give
> any protection from that. IIUC the following constitutes a paradox:
>
>     << <> a :lie >>  a :lie .
>
> Or is it only a contradiction? Maybe the monotonic nature of RDF and its
> lack of all-quantification does make paradoxes impossible? Or at least not
> harmful? Maybe it would be sufficient to disallow the self-referential <> ?
>
> Is there anything that should be done? That can be done? What are the
> dangers?
>
>
> Thanks,
> Thomas
>
>
>
>