- From: Seth Russell <seth@robustai.net>
- Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2002 14:13:27 -0700
- To: <jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com>, "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- Cc: <www-rdf-logic@w3.org>
From: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
> Even formulae like the following have to exist in all models
>
> _:b rdf:type rdf:Statement .
> _:b rdf:subject _:b .
> _:b rdf:predicate rdf:type .
> _:b rdf:object n3:falsehood .
>
> this is, more-or-less,
>
> { this a n3:falsehood }
>
> Now does this formula belong to log:Truth? If it does, then it is a true
> formula, and thus is a falsehood, because it belongs to n3:falsehood, and
> thus it can't belong to log:Truth. If it does not, then it is a non-true
> formula, and thus is a truth, because it does not belong to n3:falsehood,
> and thus it must belong to log:Truth.
How about ?
{{ this a n3:falsehood } a n3:NonSense }
Me thinks it's possible that binary logic is not going to be very useful on
the semantic web, just because of the kinds of things you are bringing up.
Seth Russell
Logic is Great, Survival better!
Received on Tuesday, 30 April 2002 17:19:10 UTC