- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- Date: Sat, 24 Aug 2002 14:30:05 -0400 (EDT)
- To: sandro@w3.org
- Cc: seth@robustai.net, sean@mysterylights.com, www-rdf-interest@w3.org
From: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org> Subject: Re: A Rough Guide to Notation3 Date: Sat, 24 Aug 2002 07:16:10 -0400 [...] > > Following the RDF philosophy that any RDF graph, > > particularly non-tree graphs, should be allowable, non-tree versions > > of the logic's sentences should also be allowed. > > I don't completely accept that last sentence. DAML+OIL says the RDF > graph > _:x daml:differentIndividualFrom _:x. > is not allowed. DAML+OIL does indeed not say that at all. _:x daml:differentIndividualFrom _:x. is a perfectly good DAML+OIL knowledge base. It just happens to be inconsistent, and thus have no intepretations, but this does *not* prevent it from being a DAML+OIL knowledge base. By the way, _:x pl:negation _:x is only a very simple example of the kind of sentences that cause problems. More complex ones can easily be constructed, such as _:x pl:negation _:y . _:y pl:conjunct _:x . _:y pl:conjunct _:x . > Each new vocabulary can do that. The RDF philosophy > of "anyone can say anything about anything" does not extend to the > point of a receiver having to make sense of a contradiction. Why not? DAML+OIL makes sense of these contradictions. (DAML+OIL has its own lossage, by the way, but a different sort of lossage.) [...] > Can't we just just disallow RDF graphs which describe self-referencial > sentences (or at least self-negating) ones? How can you do this, in RDF? They are still RDF graphs, and need to be handled by the model theory. In fact, there is no real problem with self-negating sentences, by themselves, in RDF (as opposed to the situation is some other styles of providing semantics). [...] > Is there some reason we need any other kind of sentences to exist? The problem is not their (potential) existence. It is their existence everywhere. The problem is that if you allow self-referential sentences and also need to have sentences exists everywhere, removing just the problematic ones is problematic. > -- sandro peter
Received on Saturday, 24 August 2002 14:30:16 UTC