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

Date: 17 May 2001 13:01:49 -0400

To: "Ziv Hellman" <ziv@unicorn.com>

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

Message-ID: <ogtu22jrjsy.fsf@divan.mitre.org>

Date: 17 May 2001 13:01:49 -0400

To: "Ziv Hellman" <ziv@unicorn.com>

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

Message-ID: <ogtu22jrjsy.fsf@divan.mitre.org>

"Ziv Hellman" <ziv@unicorn.com> writes: > This is an extremely weak "set theory", if one can call it that, which > hardly seems to require the full semantic power of NBG axiomatic set > theory Correct, one could use Cohen's axioms for hereditarily finite set theory just as well. I should not mentioned a specific version of set theory. My question was simply why not restrict the models of RDF statements to those consistent with an appropriate form of set theory? This would allow reasoning systems to assume and use the axioms of the selected set theory. The semantics of collections would then be familiar to all. JohnReceived on Thursday, 17 May 2001 13:08:32 UTC

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