- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2002 18:34:34 -0400
- To: seth@robustai.net
- Cc: jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com, www-rdf-logic@w3.org
From: "Seth Russell" <seth@robustai.net> Subject: Re: A Single Foundational Logic for the Semantic Web Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2002 14:13:27 -0700 > 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! Multi-valued logic does not do better here, unless, *maybe*, if you have a very weak multi-valued logic. The problematic formualae are just more complex. peter
Received on Tuesday, 30 April 2002 18:44:49 UTC