- From: Seth Russell <seth@robustai.net>
- Date: Sat, 24 Aug 2002 19:06:11 -0700
- To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- Cc: <sandro@w3.org>, <sean@mysterylights.com>, <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
From: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
> From: "Seth Russell" <seth@robustai.net>
>
> > 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.
> >
>
> 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,
> like
> Everything I say is true.
> are often uttered, particularly by members of certain professions.
Hmmm ... so you have left me with the impression (through no intention on
your part, im sure) that saying {<A> ex:notType <B>} is to be eschewed but
that we must complicate our language so that we can say nonsense ...since
the only way I can interpret <S1>~{<S1> rdf:type log:Falsehood} is nonsense.
Oh well ... logic is weird ... I think I'll just try to survive.
Seth Russell
http://robustai.net/sailor/
Received on Saturday, 24 August 2002 22:07:12 UTC