- From: Oliver Ruebenacker <curoli@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2013 18:06:47 -0400
- To: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>
- Cc: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>, Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>, Jeremy J Carroll <jjc@syapse.com>, Umutcan SIMSEK <s.umutcan@gmail.com>, Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>, "public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org" <public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org>
Hello,
On Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 5:04 PM, David Booth <david@dbooth.org> wrote:
> I see no requirement in the RDF Semantics that interpretation "I" be the
> *same* interpretation for every graph "E" to which this procedure is
> applied. Am I right, or have I completely misunderstood something
> fundamental?
An interpretation of a logical system is about connecting the
logical system to external meaning, which is different from deciding
whether the logical system is consistent within itself. The connection
between interpretation and consistency is usually that an inconsistent
system usually has no meaningful interpretation. But the fact that a
logical system can have multiple contradicting interpretations is not
an indicator that it is inconsistent within itself.
Otherwise, if you see contradicting interpretations as indicator of
inconsistency, then a logical system could never be consistent.
Because even for a single statement, you could claim that one
interpretation says it is true and another says it is false.
It makes little sense to say, I am combining two sets of statements,
while interpreting the two sets differently. You can only make sense
with one interpretation at a time.
Take care
Oliver
--
IT Project Lead at PanGenX (http://www.pangenx.com)
The purpose is always improvement
Received on Monday, 18 March 2013 22:07:14 UTC