- From: <jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com>
- Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2001 21:45:29 +0100
- To: pfps@research.bell-labs.com
- Cc: jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com, www-rdf-interest@w3.org
[...] > This is not at all what I meant. > > The problem is roughly that: > > Sufficiently-powerful formalisms that include all their syntactic > structures in their interpretations and that (can) assert that > these syntactic structures are true are ill-formed. (Think of the > liar's paradox.) > > The natural way of looking at DAML+OIL does fit in this class. I do not > know of any reasonable way of looking at DAML+OIL that does not fit in this > class. Thanks Peter for putting it so clear. I've roughly checked and we're indeed *not* asserting such stuff (but of course we have to clarify our other discussion http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-interest/2001Dec/0123.html ) -- Jos
Received on Friday, 21 December 2001 15:47:27 UTC