W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-interest@w3.org > August 2002

Re: A Rough Guide to Notation3

From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Date: Sat, 24 Aug 2002 21:43:55 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <20020824.214355.46626915.pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
To: seth@robustai.net
Cc: sandro@w3.org, sean@mysterylights.com, www-rdf-interest@w3.org

From: "Seth Russell" <seth@robustai.net>
Subject: Re: A Rough Guide to Notation3 
Date: Sat, 24 Aug 2002 15:53:06 -0700

> From: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
> > You could forbid all self-referential sentences.  However, some
> > self-referential sentences are interesting, and forbidding any form of
> > self-reference goes against the RDF philosophy of being able to say
> > anything about anything.
> Well, it seems to me, that right now we can't even say in RDF that {<A>
> ex:notType <B>} where 'ex:notType' is the negation of 'rdf:type'.  Can we?
> If so, how?  If not,  what do you mean that  RDF's has a philosophy of being
> able to say anything about anything?
> Also, can you privide a single 'interesting' case of ?x and ?y in the form:
>    <S1>~{<S1> ?x ?y}
> where the '~' indicates that <S1> is the identity of the RDF triple
>    {<S1> ?x ?y} ?
> I can't think of any.
> Seth Russell
> http://robustai.net/sailor/

Well, the Liar's paradox,
	<S1>~{<S1> rdf:type log:Falsehood}
is certainly interesting in some sense.

However, most interesting looping sentences are more complex.  Statements,
	Everything I say is true.
are often uttered, particularly by members of certain professions.

Received on Saturday, 24 August 2002 21:44:06 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:44:37 UTC