Re: Layering LX (or FOL) on RDF

From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 23:55:01 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <20020826.235501.70989628.pfps@research.bell-labs.com>

```
From: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
Subject: Re: Layering LX (or FOL) on RDF
Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 21:25:26 -0400

[...]

> > > I'm proposing that the logical formula
> > >
> > >     % there exists a triple whose subject is itself
> > >     exists t subjTerm predTerm objTerm pred obj (
> > >       rdf(t, lx_subjectTerm, subjTerm) &
> > >       rdf(subjTerm, lx_denotation, t) &
> > >       rdf(t, lx_predicateTerm, predTerm) &
> > >       rdf(predTerm, lx_denotation, pred) &
> > >       rdf(t, lx_objectTerm, objTerm) &
> > >       rdf(objTerm, lx_denotation, obj)
> > >     )

[...]

> > > has the same meaning as any other formula which contradicts the
> > > layering axioms or contradicts itself, such as
> > >
> > >      % there exists some triple which is both true and false
> > >      exist a b c (
> > >        rdf(a,b,c) & -rdf(a,b,c)
> > >      )
> >
> > Again, what logical formula is this supposed to be?
>
> It's a way of saying (p & -p), but I'm restricting myself to the LX
> subset of FOL where at the moment I'm only allowing one predicate, the
> ternary "rdf".  I don't think this restriction has any serious
> utility, it just made defining the language's relationship to RDF
> easier.

Sorry.  My point was more that the formulae themselves, if read
literally, don't seem to match up with the comments attached to them.

[...]

peter
```
Received on Monday, 26 August 2002 23:55:10 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:44:38 UTC