- From: <jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com>
- Date: Sun, 8 Apr 2001 12:49:13 +0100
- To: GK@ninebynine.org
- Cc: www-rdf-logic@w3.org
> At 10:42 PM 4/6/01 +0100, jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com wrote: > >ps you seem to have some interesting points about negation, but I have > > to re-read them (as I was close to the belief that open-world-negation > > was impossible) > > Until this, I never got any sense that open world negation was > impossible. Rather that it always brought the possibility of contradictory > or inconsistent expression. If I get this right, closed worlds have a > possibility of setting rules on "valid" expressions such that no two such > "valid" expressions are contradictory. > It's at least hard to implement ... I did another attemp at http://www.agfa.com/w3c/euler/ with an N3 statement statement a log:Falsehood. which is actually a unary predicate So if we assert p a log:Falsehood (to be true) then p is false and if we found p a log:Falsehood to be false then p is true. That should fit with Prolog like Robinson resolution theorem proofing ... > Refering to the 1-pager on formal systems that Dan cited a while ago: > > [[[ > % Formal Systems - Definitions > % (from Ruth E. Davis, Truth, Deduction, and Computation. > % New York: Computer Science press, 1989.) > % > http://www-rci.rutgers.edu/~cfs/305_html/Deduction/FormalSystemDefs.html > % (c) Charles F. Schmidt > % Last Modified: Saturday, May 08, 1999 9:07:08 PM GMT >]]] > thanks for that pointer! if you refer to DanC's explanation during the RDF-IF F2F meeting last february, then I think it was some other stuff he mentioned ... at least he spoke about: term atom formula object model Dan, any pointer? > I think this view of a "closed world" might be similar to a "theory". > have to think about that > #g -- Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/
Received on Sunday, 8 April 2001 06:49:27 UTC