- From: Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>
- Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2004 18:59:07 +0000
- To: Bob MacGregor <macgregor@ISI.EDU>, Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Cc: Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>, www-rdf-interest@w3.org
At 10:18 12/02/04 -0800, Bob MacGregor wrote: >I think the answer is easy (but we'll see if someone confounds me) >The problem would appear to revolve around the question of whether that >particular >assertion is a part of the graph its commenting on, or is it not. >If it is a part, then you have the liar's paradox. So it can't be. > >The solution would seem to be that if you want to make assertions >about a graph G1, those (provenance) assertions need to be >made in a second graph G2. This is resonant (to my mind) with Tarskian semantics :-) #g ------------ Graham Klyne For email: http://www.ninebynine.org/#Contact
Received on Thursday, 12 February 2004 14:12:19 UTC