From: John D. Ramsdell <ramsdell@linus.mitre.org>

Date: Thu, 17 May 2001 09:24:10 -0400

Message-Id: <200105171324.JAA18360@divan.mitre.org>

To: "Www-Rdf-Logic" <www-rdf-logic@w3.org>

CC: ramsdell@linus.mitre.org

Date: Thu, 17 May 2001 09:24:10 -0400

Message-Id: <200105171324.JAA18360@divan.mitre.org>

To: "Www-Rdf-Logic" <www-rdf-logic@w3.org>

CC: ramsdell@linus.mitre.org

I am puzzled by RDF's treatment of containers. It seems to me that RDF provides a way to talk about collections of objects without requiring that collections have the semantics one normally attaches to them. The standard practice in mathematics is to use set theory for that purpose, so why not restrict the models of RDF statements to those consistent with set theory? One could do this by allowing reasoning systems to assume the axioms of set theory. Von-Neumann-Bernays-Godel (NBG) set theory is well suited for this purpose. You can read more about NBG and mechanized mathematics in W. M. Farmer, "STMM: A Set Theory for Mechanized Mathematics", Journal of Automated Reasoning, 2000, Vol 26, No. 3, pp. 269-289, http://imps.mcmaster.ca/doc/stmm.pdf. JohnReceived on Thursday, 17 May 2001 09:24:45 UTC

*
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0
: Friday, 17 January 2020 22:45:37 UTC
*