- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 18:08:31 -0400 (EDT)
- To: seth@robustai.net
- Cc: www-rdf-interest@w3.org
From: "Seth Russell" <seth@robustai.net> Subject: Re: Layering LX (or FOL) on RDF Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 15:03:31 -0700 > 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> [...] > Well, lots, including the fact that the arrows are not RDF statements, as > they are more than triples. > > Within one document, all the arrows are triples. To express multiple > formula, we need to use multiple RDF documents. How can your ``arrows'' be triples, they have three ends! > > Well the problem is that if you make this formula belong to pl:Falsity, > > then the rules of logic say that it must belong to pl:Truth, and the rules > > of logic also say that pl:Truth and pl:Falsity are disjoint. Similarly, if > > you make it belong to pl:Truth, then the rules of logic say that it must > > belong to pl:Falsity. So no matter what you do, you get into a bind. > > Yes, I agree. <http://robustai.net/sailor/paradox.rdf> is a paradox and > should excluded from all graphs that purports to be binarialy logical. But how can you do this exclusion within RDF? > Seth Russell > http://robustai.net/sailor/ peter
Received on Tuesday, 27 August 2002 18:08:41 UTC