- From: Jos De_Roo <jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com>
- Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2002 11:56:34 +0100
- To: "Frank Manola <fmanola" <fmanola@mitre.org>
- Cc: "w3c-rdfcore-wg" <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
[...] > 2. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Feb/0202.html > (Brian) if we decide that: > > <s1> <rdf:type> <rdf:Statment> . > <s1> <rdf:subject> <subject> . > <s1> <rdf:predicate> <predicate> . > <s1> <rdf:object> <object> . > > <s2> <rdf:type> <rdf:Statment> . > <s2> <rdf:subject> <subject> . > <s2> <rdf:predicate> <predicate> . > <s2> <rdf:object> <object> . > > <s1> <prop> <value> . > > entails > > <s2> <prop> <value> . > > then to be consistent we must also decide that anything (and nothing) > entails: > > _:s <rdf:type> <rdf:Statment> . > _:s <rdf:subject> <subject> . > _:s <rdf:predicate> <predicate> . > _:s <rdf:object> <object> . > > for any subject, predicate and object. I don't see the consistency issue here assuming Tarski's [[ A deductive theory is called CONSISTENT or NON-CONTRADICTORY if no two asserted statements of this theory contradict each other, or, in other words, if any two contradictory sentences at least one *cannot* be proved. ]] where is the inconsistency Brian??? It's actually "good luck" that we *cannot* prove everything!!! -- Jos ps I agree with 3
Received on Friday, 8 February 2002 05:57:13 UTC